(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "University of Massachusetts Board of Trustees records, 1836-2010"




EH 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Date 



July 28, 1977 



Boa 


rd of Trustees 




INDEX 


Time 


Place 



2:00 p.m. UM/Worcester 



September 14, 1977 2:00 p.m. UM/Amherst 



October 5, 1977 



2:00 p.m. UM/Boston 



November 1-2, 1977 2:00 p.m. 



December 7, 1977 
January 11, 1978 
February 1, 1978 
March 1, 1978 
April 5, 1978 
May 3, 1978 
May 15, 1978 
June 7, 1978 
August 2, 1978 



2:00 p.m. 
1:00 p.m. 
2:00 p.m. 
2:00 p.m. 
2:00 p.m. 
2:00 p.m . 



October 4, 1978 

November 1, 1978 
(reconvened 1 1/27) 



UM/Worcester 

UM/Boston 

UM/Worcester 

UM/Amherst 

UM/Boston 

UM/Boston 

UM/Worcester 



2:30 p.m. Copley Plaza 
2:00 p.m. UM/Boston 
2:00 p.m. UM/Boston 



September 13, 1978 2:30 p.m. UM/Boston 



2:00 p.m. 57 Park Plaza 

2:00 p.m. UM/Worcester 

(250 Stuart Street) 



Pages 

4333-4347 

4349-4363 

4365-4377 

4379-4396 

4397-4410 



December 6, 1978 10:30 a.m. UM/Amherst 




■If::, 



M -m & ■ 





(> 






VA 



Mf 






■^ 










% 



mi 






i. 























r iK#i 




t^JXi 




UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



I 



I 



I 



1 



I 



I 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

July 28, 1977; 2:00 p.m. 
Faculty Conference Room 
Medical Sciences Building 
University of Massachusetts/Worcester 

Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Wood; 



Trustees Baker, Batiste, Burack, Clark, Crain, Dennis, Gordon, 
Kassler, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, Robertson, Romer, 
Row]. and, Spiller, Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; 
Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Blues tone represent- 
ing Trustee Fielding; Ms. Kaplan representing Trustee Okin; Mr. 
Colby representing Trustee Winthrop; Secretary Hardy; Treasurer 
Johnson; Ms. Eichel, recorder 

Absent Trustees: Trustees Breyer and Shearer 



Office of the President: Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 



Affairs; Ms. Robinson, Vice President for Planning; Father Walsh, 
Academic Advisor to the President; Mr. Bench, University Counsel 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Puryear, Vice Chancellor for 



Academic Affairs and Provost; Professor Brogan, Faculty Repre- 
sentative 

UM/Boston: Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs 



UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance; Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for 
Health Affairs; Mr. Edgar Smith, Provost 

Invited Guests : Mr. Paul Rahmeier, Board of Higher Education; 
Deans Allen, Bischoff, Jones, Shapiro and Wilkinson, UM/Amherst 
Academic Council; Professor Burke, Secretary, UM/Amherst Faculty 
Senate 

The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m., at which 
time the Board, on motion made and seconded, and on roll call, 

VOTED : To enter executive session to discuss personnel 
matters and collective bargaining. 

At 3:02 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED 



To conclude the executive session. 



Chairman Healey reconvened the meeting in open session 
at 3:10 p.m. He called first for consideration of the minutes of 
two previous meetings, and on motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the meetings of June 
1 and June 23, 1977. 



Executive 
Session 



Consideration 
of Minutes of 
Prior Meetings 



4334 



Board 
7/28/77 

Resolution of 
Thanks and 
Appreciation 
to Bruce R. 
Carlson 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey next called upon Trustee Rowland, who 
proposed the following resolution, which was unanimously adopted 

"In the four years he was a member of the Board, Bruce 
Carlson became invaluable — in fact, irreplaceable — for 
he brought a unique combination of executive and finan- 
cial experience and long service in educational affairs. 

"As a member of the Executive Committee, the Committee 
on Long-Range Planning, and the Committee on Budget and 
Finance, he has involved himself in a broad range of 
budgeting, priority and personnel issues facing the 
University in a most critical period of growth and chal- 
lenge. As a part of the University community he gave 
warmly of his interest and time at the establishment of 
the College of Professional Studies. 

"We owe him our special gratitude for his chairmanship 
of the Committee on Finance and later the combined Com- 
mittee on Budget and Finance. We were awed by his ability 
to confront a maze of figures, state accounts, balances, 
and budgets and to present us, his colleagues, with a 
concise, comprehensible, and fair analysis. If it did 
not make the hard choices any easier, Bruce Carlson's 
work allowed us to act with the assurance that we under- 
stood the choices we were making. 

"Few of us can claim to have devoted as much time and 
patience to the University as Bruce Carlson, and he did 
so at considerable personal sacrifice and logistical 
inconvenience. We are deeply- in his debt and we will 
remember him — for his service, for his friendship and 
for his example of the highest principles of lay trustee- 
ship." 

Chairman Healey next introduced and welcomed Trustee 
Trustee Haskel Haskell Kassler as a new member of the Board, succeeding Mr. 

Bruce Carlson. Mr. Kassler, he said, was a distinguished lawyer 
with a long record of public service. 



Welcome of new 

Trustee 

Kassler 



Scheduling of 
Board Meetings 



Chairman Healey next called attention to the schedule 
of Board meetings which had been prepared for the remainder of 
the year, noting that traditionally the meetings had been held on 
the first Wednesday of the month and had been held on the campus- 
es in a rotating pattern. He asked if this pattern was still 
acceptable to the members of the Board. He then mentioned that 
he could not be present on the first Wednesday in September. 
Since there were other Trustees who also had commitments on Sep- 
tember 7, it was agreed that the September meeting would be held 
on the second Wednesday of the month, September 14. It was the 
sense of the meeting that the schedule of future meetings would 
be reviewed and reordered as deemed desirable. 



-2- 



I 



I 



I 



] 



1 



I 



4335 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey turned next to the matter of Inter- 
collegiate Athletic Tuition Waivers, informing the members of the 
Board that due to a misunderstanding, Secretary Parks had not 
realized that he could not vote in absentia and had left the June 
1 meeting before the vote on this matter had been taken. There- 
fore, Chairman Healey said, he had agreed to allow Secretary Parks 
to propose reconsideration of the June 1 vote of the Board. 

Secretary Parks thanked the Chairman for allowing him 
the opportunity to reopen this issue. He then moved reconsidera- 
tion of the previous vote since, he said, it was his understanding 
that when tuition waivers had been considered several years ago, 
one of the criteria had been that waivers would be granted on the 
basis of need. Although he was not against athletics, he said, 
he did not believe the tuition waiver policy should be used for 
the purpose of bringing athletes to the campus. He felt there 
must be another method for accomplishing this purpose. Trustee 
McNeil, speaking for the Committee on Student Affairs in the 
absence of Chairman Shearer, said that Committee had endorsed a 
specific number of athletic waivers for a limited period of time, 
with the understanding that a full review of tuition waivers 
would determine whether athletic waivers would be continued as a 
matter of policy. The whole tuition waiver policy, she said, 
would be reviewed in September. Trustee Rowland reminded the 
Board that the Committee on Budget and Finance had also endorsed 
the athletic waivers. 

President Wood commented with regard to Secretary Parks' 
point regarding the criterion of need, that of the $1,932,633 of 
tuition waived each year, only two programs were need based, one 
in the amount of $15,000 and the other in the amount of $45,000. 
Trustee Marks said he would suggest that this complex issue, be- 
cause of the apparent strong feeling on the part of some Trustees, 
be reviewed further and he would be happy to see the former vote 
reversed. He said he would rather have these waivers considered 
in the context of the entire tuition waiver package. Then, he 
said, he felt the Board would be able to reach consensus. 

Trustee Clark asked if commitments had already been 
made based on the June 1 vote of the Board. Chancellor Bromery 
replied that sixty-six individuals had been identified for waivers 
but the waivers would not be granted until he had received ap- 
proval of policy and guidelines for the awarding of these waivers. 
If these individuals do not receive waivers, he said, they will 
receive scholarships from the Barber Fund, thus reducing the 
amount in that fund which can be used for other purposes. He 
said the amount of money involved in these proposed waivers was a 
very small portion of the total tuition collected. Ms. Kaplan 
asked how many of the sixty-six identified individuals were women. 
Dean Bischoff replied he believed eight were women. 

Trustee Gordon reminded the Board members that the Corn- 



Board 
7/28/77 

Reconsideration 
of June 1 vote 
on Intercol- 
legiate Athletic 
Tuition Waivers 



-3- 



4336 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

monwealth had never supported athletics at the University. The 
money for athletic programs had come from the Alumni Fund. An 
attempt in recent years to obtain more support from the alumni 
had resulted in a $40,000 contribution toward athletic programs 
with the understanding that the University would agree to greater 
support of intercollegiate athletic programs. If viable athletic 
programs were to be maintained, he said, the need for support was 
immediate. Out of 4600 nonveteran waivers, he said, only 280 
were need-based. 

Trustee Morgenthau asked if the Board did not reconsider 
its previous vote, whether that would mean that money would be 
taken away from students who needed it. Chancellor Bromery 
replied that it definitely would not. Then, said Trustee Morgen- 
thau, the Trustees could consider this matter again in September 
when the entire policy will be reviewed, could it not. It was 
agreed this was true. Chancellor Bromery explained that the tui- 
tion waiver policy was constantly being reviewed and that a new 
category of waiver was currently under consideration which would 
recognize those persons who provide a service to the University 
which restricts the time they have available to take on paying 
jobs. To Trustee Kassler's query as to why dormitory counselors 
should not have been considered at the same time as athletes, 
Chancellor Bromery replied that their need was not as immediate 
and it had been decided to sequence the service tuition waivers. 
Trustee Kassler suggested that the real purpose of the waivers 
was to provide football scholarships. Chancellor Bromery said 
this was absolutely not true. 

Trustee Clark said that this matter had already been 
discussed and voted and she did not understand why it must be 
discussed again. Chairman Healey explained that the discussion 
was on the motion to reconsider. He then called for a second to 
the motion and it was then, on roll call 



VOTED : To reconsider the June 1, 1977, Vote of the 
Board to authorize the Chancellor of UM/ 
Amherst to grant 120 undergraduate athletic 
tuition waivers to Massachusetts residents 
as outlined in Doc. T77-101. 

For the motion: Trustees Baker, Batiste, Burack, Crain, Dennis, 
Kassler, Marks, McNulty; Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis; 
Ms. Bluestone representing Trustee Fielding; Ms. Kaplan repre- 
senting Trustee Okin; Mr. Colby representing Trustee Winthrop 

Against the motion: Trustees Clark, Gordon, Healey, McNeil, 
Morgenthau, Robertson, Rowland, Spiller, Troy, Wood; Mr. Callahan 
representing Trustee Anrig 



I 



I 



Ayes: 12 Nays: 11 



MOTION CARRIED 



-4- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Spiller asked for legal opinion on a point of 
order. Since a motion for reconsideration must be made by some- 
one who voted in favor of the original motion, he questioned the 
legality of the vote to reconsider. 

Trustee Marks suggested that the Committee on Student 
Affairs might wish to invite other Trustees to participate in dis 
cussions of the Tuition Waiver Policy so that there would be a 
better likelihood of obtaining consensus when the Board next con- 
sidered the issue. On motion made and seconded, it was then 

VOTED : To refer the matter of Intercollegiate Tuition 

Waivers back to the Committee on Student Affairs, 
pending legal opinion of Trustee Counsel as to 
the validity of the vote to reconsider the prior 
action of the Board. 

Chairman Healey next asked for comment by the President 
President Wood said that a transition period in any institution 
carried elements both of continuity and preparation for change. 
The work going forward in the preparation of the 1979 budget and 
the master planning process, he said, represented continuity. 
Important votes before the Board at the present time were concern- 
ed with preparation for change. 

He said he wished to acknowledge, especially, the con- 
tributions of three members of the University's Administration, 
whose services have always been of the highest order and whose 
contributions before and during this transition had been vital to 
the University's well being. For one, this would constitute her 
last day with the Board. Another would leave before the next 
Board meeting. A third was with the University before this Admin- 
istration and he hoped would continue long afterwards — but his 
contributions had been so important in the past several weeks 
that they deserved special recognition. 

Gladys Keith Hardy, said President Wood, was appointed 
in November, 1974, as Secretary of the University and Secretary 
to the Board of Trustees, and came bearing extraordinary gifts: 



an unparalleled cosmopolitan background in higher 
education, public and private, professional expe- 
rience in state and national government, national 
foundations, and public broadcasting; 

membership on a dozen advisory committees and as- 
sociations of regional and national repute, with 
all the personal and professional associations 
such memberships provide; 

a superb sense of educational policy and the out- 
standing issues that faced the University, combined 



4337 



Board 
7/28/77 



Presidential 
Agenda 



-5- 



4338 



Board 
7/28/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

with an appreciation of the importance of process 
and structure, and command of detail; 

— and not the least, personal characteristics of 
integrity and courage, often masked by the always 
visible qualities of charm, grace, patience, tact, 
and beauty. 

Formerly the Commonwealth's Undersecretary of Educa- 
tional Affairs, Director of Institutional Research and Planning 
for Boston University, sometime Director of Planning and Analysis 
for the National Endowment for the Humanities, Program Associate 
for the Ford Foundation, Executive Director of the Public/Private 
Forum, Gladys Keith Hardy had marshalled the knowledge and insight 
gained from all these endeavors and brought them to bear on the 
work with the Board and the University with extraordinary effec- 
tiveness . 

Given her national reputation and standing, he said, it 
was perhaps inevitable that the University would lose her — as it 
has, to accept a new challenge as Deputy Director of the National 
Institute for Education in Washington. But, however to be antic- 
ipated, the loss is great — to the Trustees, Chancellors, faculty 
representatives and students — all she served so skillfully to 
link together in understanding and responding to the genuine 
agenda of the University. Most of all, he said, he felt the loss- 
prof essionally, and personally — for a brilliant, honest, talented 
and lovely colleague and friend was leaving. 

John Eller, said President Wood, was with the Univer- 
sity for a year and a half, as Associate Vice President for Uni- 
versity Policy, but his contributions were also substantial. His 
presence was catalytic and ubiquitous, deeply involved in the key 
policy development of the Medical Center, the conduct of internal 
and external relations of the University with such diverse con- 
stituencies as Federal and State executive departments and agen- 
cies, the Alumni, the University Foundation, the summer youth 
program. Avocationally a leader in voluntary associations across 
the state, a student and practitioner of government, level-headed 
forthright, of boundless energy and good will, he will leave the 
University next month to become Executive Director of the Massa- 
chusetts Housing Finance Agency. And, said President Wood, his 
daily cheerful greeting, "Top of the morning" will go with him — 
the University will miss John. 

Finally, President Wood said, he wanted to acknowledge 
the steady and special contributions of Joseph Cass. A pioneer 
in continuing education before it was fashionable, as the Directot 
of the Institute for Labor Relations each year he helped assure 
the professional and responsible conduct of labor affairs across 
the state, reaching thousands of union members, cultivating lead- 
ership. Joe Cass, he said, was truly an educational innovator of 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

proven success in a notoriously risky field. As spokesman for 
the University to the State House, he, more than any one else, 
deserved credit for the University's hard won reputation for 
integrity, for accountability, for demonstrating again and again 
the worth of this enterprise. 

This year, his accomplishments could only be termed, 
monumental — a budget that returned the University once again to 
the path of progress; the establishment of the hospital trust 
fund that promises an orderly, cost-conscious and cost-effective 
basis for the management of the Center that is the envy of col- 
leagues of public medical centers across the country; and, less 
noticeable, but essential was his monitoring of literally hundreds 
of legislative proposals that vitally affect the University's 
academic and financial programs. A professional in every sense 
of the word, he said, the University was incomparably stronger 
because Joe Cass had been and still was there. 

The Board recognized the contributions of Mrs. Hardy, 
Mr. Eller and Mr. Cass with a standing ovation. 

President Wood then asked for comment from the Chancel- 
lors. Chancellor Bromery and Chancellor Bulger both said that 
because of the lateness of the hour and the full agenda of the 
Board, they would forego comment. Provost Steamer said that Chan 
cellor Golino had asked him to express regret that a commitment 
made before the scheduling of the Board meeting had prevented 
the Chancellor from attending. He then commented briefly on the 
success of the second fee-assisted summer program at UM/Boston. 
Last year, he said, there were 1200 students enrolled in this 
program. This year it had attracted 1800 students, 1500 of whom 
were UM/Boston students. 

Chairman Healey then turned to the report of the Execu- 
tive Committee. He said that the Committee had met earlier that 
day and had recommended action on the following items: 

The 1978 Appropriation Act, he said, had provided for 
the establishment of the Medical Center Teaching Hospital Trust 
Fund , and in connection with the operation of this fund, two 
Board actions were required. First, the Board must authorize 
certain officers of the University to receive and disburse Uni- 
versity funds in connection with the Trust Fund. On motion made 
and seconded, it was 

VOTED : In accordance with the provisions of Item 7411- 
1006 of Section 2 of Chapter 363A of the Acts 
of 1977 (the appropriation for the Teaching 
Hospital of the University of Massachusetts at 
Worcester) , that those officers of the Univer- 
sity or of the Medical Center heretofore or 
from time to time authorized by the Board of 



-7- 



4339 



Board 
7/28/77 



Report of 
Executive 
Committee 

UM/Worcester— 
Es tab lishment 
of Hospital 
Trust Fund 



4340 



Board 
7/28/77 



UM/Worcester — 
Fund Transfer 
(Doc. T78-002) 



UM/Worcester — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Michael 0. Bice 
as Director of 
University 
Hospital 
(Doc. T78-007) 



UM/Worcester — 
Personnel Action 
(Doc. T78-008) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustees to receive and disburse University 
funds, and whose names are currently or may 
from time to time be placed on file with the 
State Comptroller, are hereby further authorized 
to receive and disburse the funds appropriated 
under said Item 7411-1006, as well as funds 
deposited in the trust fund established in the 
State Treasury by said Item; said officers 
are hereby directed to account for said receipts 
and disbursements in accordance with established 
University and standard state accounting procedures, 
and to report monthly to the Board of Trustees, 
the President, the Commissioner of Administration 
and the House and Senate Committees on Ways and 
Means; provided , that all expenditures shall be 
within the scope of the maintenance and operating 
budgets approved by the Board of Trustees from 
time to time for the said Teaching Hospital, and 
provided , further, that funds shall be available 
therefor. 

Since the money appropriated was all allocated to Ac- 
count 01, it was necessary to ask that these funds be transferred 
to various subsidiary accounts. On motion made and seconded, it 
was 

VOTED : To approve the fund transfers among subsidiary 
accounts at the University of Massachusetts at 
Worcester, as detailed in Trustee Document T78- 
002. 

In executive session earlier in the meeting, said Chair- 
man Healey, the Board had considered Concurrence in the Appoint- 
ment of Director of University Hospital — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78- 
007) and had also considered a personnel action in connection with 
this appointment. On motion made and seconded, it was 



I 



I 



VOTED 



To concur, along with the President, in the 
appointment by the Chancellor of Michael 0. 
Bice as Director of the University of Massa- 
chusetts Hospital, UM/Worcester, as detailed 
in Trustee Doc. T78-007. 



and further 



VOTED 



To approve the personnel action as set forth 
in Trustee Doc. T78-008. 



and 



VOTED : Every personnel action shall be subject to the 
policies and procedures now in effect as sub- 



-8- 



I 



4341 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

sequently amended, revised, added to or repealed 
by the Board of Trustees with respect to profes- 
sional personnel under provisions of Chapter 75 
of the General Laws as amended by Chapter 648, 
1962. The classification, salary range and de- 
scriptive job specification for each position to 
which a member of the professional staff is hereby 
appointed, promoted, transferred or determined 
shall be as hereafter determined by the Board of 
Trustees or under their authority. 

Chairman Healey asked for the report of the Committee 
on Student Affairs. In Trustee Shearer's absence, Trustee McNeil 
reported there had been an extended discussion of a Proposed Ex- 
pansion of the Tuition Waiver Policy , and that a draft proposal 
for a new category of waivers, "Tuition Waivers for Significant 
Service and Contribution to the University of Massachusetts," had 
been considered. Clarification of the guidelines to be used and 
a clearer delineation of the purpose of the awards had been re- 
quested, she said, and the Committee hoped to review the entire 
tuition waiver package and to present a recommendation to the 
Board at its September meeting. 

Trustee Burack requested that consideration be given in 
the discussion of tuition waivers to the bases on which the selec- 
tions for waivers are made. She said she would be interested in 
knowing what criteria are used and whether the Admissions Office 
was involved in the process of determining who would receive 
waivers. 

The Committee, she said, had next considered Student 
Support Services — UM/Boston, which had been a topic for discus- 
sion over the last several years. Discussion at the June 23 
meeting, she said, had centered around career opportunities and 
effective delivery of services. The major issues centered around 
problems with the organizational structure of the delivery of 
services. However, recent reorganization has improved this area 
and the campus is now in a position to work on placement of its 
students. The role of the faculty in career counseling was also 
discussed, and the Committee had recommended that counseling be 
more uniform in the various colleges. 

The Committee had then considered Placement — UM/Worces- 
ter. Placement at UM/Worcester had been very successful, she 
said, partly because students spend time in various hospitals, 
from which job opportunities arise. Approximately half of the 
graduates at UM/Worcester have accepted in-state residencies, and 
the Medical School is attracting out-of-state entrants to its 
residency and internships programs. 

Because of lack of time, a discussion of placement at 
UM/Amherst was postponed to a subsequent meeting. 



-9- 



Board 
7/28/77 



Report of 
Committee on 
Student Affairs 

Proposed 
Expansion 
of Tuition 
Waiver Policy 



UM/Boston — 
Student 
Support 
Services 



UM/Worcester- 
Placement 



' 4342 



Board 
7/28/77 

Report of 
Committee on 
Buildings and 
Grounds 

UM/Amherst — 
Update on Bus 
Service 

UM/Wo re ester — 
Parking 

Central Office 
Location 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey then called on Trustee Spiller for the 
report of the Committee on Buildings and Grounds. Trustee Spiller 
said the Committee had met on July 21 and had first heard an up- 
date on Bus Service — UM/Amherst. Further discussions and action 
will be proposed on this matter at the next meeting of the Commit-- 
tee. 

The Committee, he said, had then heard a report on the 
progress of Parking — UM/Worcester. 

The principal item of agenda, said Trustee Spiller, had 
been a discussion of the Central Office Location . The lease at 
One Washington Mall will expire in October, and although the FY 
1978 appropriation held no restriction on rental space, no money 
was included for rent beyond the period of the current lease. 
The Trustees must determine the plans of UM/Boston for the future 
of 100 Arlington Street before it can consider alternative loca- 
tions for the central office. Should it be determined that there 
will be adequate space at 100 Arlington Street for the central 
office, then it must be determined whether it will be possible to 
obtain capital outlay funds for necessary renovations. It will 
take at least two months to determine these facts, he said, after 
which the Trustees must consider whether 100 Arlington or another 
location would be more suitable for the central office. Whatever 
the decision, it will be necessary to find new space fairly soon, 
since the central office cannot remain much longer at One Washing 
ton Mall, and substantial renovation of 100 Arlington Street 
would take at least two to three years, should it be the decision 
of the Trustees to use this facility for the central office. 

Secretary Parks said he did not believe the Governor 
would approve the appropriation of money for any space leased off 
campus. Trustee Clark asked if the Legislature held the same 
sentiments with regard to leased space as the Governor. She said 
to locate the President's Office on campus, in her estimation, 
would be disastrous. President Wood asked Secretary Parks if the 
Governor's concern about the central office location of the Uni- 
versity also applied to the central offices of the state and com- 
munity college systems. Secretary Parks replied that he did not 
know the answer to President Wood's question. Trustee Morgenthau 
asked if this meant there would be no money available for interim 
space, pending the arrival of the incoming president. She said 
the problem of the central office location needed speedy resolu- 
tion since the search would be affected by this decision. 



Trustee Spiller said that the work of the Space Commit- 
tee had included a review of private and public buildings to 
determine where space was available. The Commonwealth, he said, 
had provided a written statement to the effect that no space was 
available in state buildings in the City of Boston. The space at 
100 Arlington that had been leased to the City for Madison Park 
High School, he said, was in incredibly poor condition. The 



I 



I 



-10- 



I 



4343 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

funds requested for renovation of this space for the use of the 
Boston campus have not been approved. Even with approval of a 
capital outlay, it would take a minimum of three years to totally 
renovate the building. Trustee Crain said that it was his under- 
standing that the Legislature had not yet taken action on the 
Capital Outlay budget. 

Trustee Gordon asked Secretary Parks to convey to the 
Governor, based on experience at other institutions, the under- 
standing that the worst possible option would be to locate the 
central administration offices on a campus of the University. 
Trustee Burack expressed her view that it should be made clear 
that when the original capital outlay request was forwarded to 
the Board, renovations for the central office were not included 
in the package. She suggested changing the request for renovatior 
of 100 Arlington Street to the urgent category because of the 
limited amount of time the central office can stay at One Washing- 
ton Mall. She suggested that a declaration from the Board of its 
intent to move to state-owned space in a reasonable amount of time 
might dispose the Legislature to provide rental funds for an ex- 
tension of the current lease. 

Trustee Spiller stated that the Committee on Buildings 
and Grounds was operating under the premise of what they perceivec 
to be Trustee policy, previously adopted by the Board, to the ef- 
fect that there should be a strong central office, located in 
space away from the campuses and convenient to the seat of govern- 
ment. He said although it was conceivable that the central office: 
could remain at One Washington Mall for two to three months, the 
only space where the office could move in a short time would be 
commercial space. 

President Wood commented that the Committee on Buildings 
and Grounds at its August meeting would be reviewing an analysis 
of the possibilities for the use of 100 Arlington on both a short- 
term and long-term basis. Trustee Crain commented that the in- 
coming president might require a different size staff from that 
of the current administration, and he thought it unwise to con- 
sider an extended lease. However, in the meantime, the office 
must move somewhere. 

Vice President Robinson explained that if the Trustees 
were to consider 100 Arlington Street as the location for a perma 
nent long-term central office, a substantial capital outlay ap- 
propriation would be required. Given the lead time required to 
prepare either commercial space or 100 Arlington, it was probably 
impossible to wait to take action until a new president was ap- 
pointed. She also said that the Board's philosophy about the 
central office would undoubtedly be a factor of consideration by 
candidates for the position. 

Trustee Troy suggested that the Executive Committee 



-11- 



Board 
7/28/77 



4344 



Board 
7/28/77 



Report of 
Committee 
on Budget 
and Finance 

Report of 

Investment 

Counsel 

Report of Sub- 
committee on 
South African 
Investments 

UM/Amherst — 
FY 1978 
Revenue- Based 
Budget Summary 
(Doc. T77-078) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

debate again the philosophy of a strong central office facility. 
Trustee Burack suggested the necessity of obtaining a reading of 
Legislative sentiment with regard to the central office of the 
University. 

Chairman Healey said that the Committee on Buildings 
and Grounds might wish to learn what space might be available on 
the campuses that could house the central office. Trustee Robert- 
son expressed his belief that the office should be moved as soon 
as possible from One Washington Mall, particularly since it would 
be necessary to use Trust Funds to pay the rent after the expira- 
tion of the lease in October. He felt to use Trust Funds for thi$ 
purpose was not desirable. 



Trustee Morgenthau cautioned that the Executive Commit- 
tee should discuss the issue of philosophy at an early date. 
Trustee Kassler said that UM/Boston's plans for 100 Arlington 
Street should not automatically eliminate the possibility of usin 
the space for a central office. 



I 



Chairman Healey asked for the report of the Committee 
on Budget and Finance. Since the Chairmanship of this Committee 
was presently vacant, Trustee Troy gave the report. The Commit- 
tee, he said, had met on July 21 at which time they had heard a 
report from representatives of the Investment Counsel, Standish, 
Ayer & Wood . They had made recommendations for a change in the 
investment portfolio of the University which the Committee had 
voted to approve. 

The Committee had then heard a report by Trustee 
Batiste on the progress being made by the Subcommittee on South 
African Investments. 

Discussion had then turned to the FY 1978 Revenue- 
Based Budget Summary — UM/Amherst (Doc. T77-078) , a draft copy of 
which had been previously circulated to the Committee. This 
budget has to be approved, he said, before the opening of the 
fall semester. This budget was developed in preparation for the 
FY 1978 Operating Budget, of which it is a part. The FY 1978 
Operating Budget will be on the August agenda of the Committee. 
Mr. Gulko, Budget Director, UM/Amherst, said Trustee Troy, report- 
ed on the external audit of several of the auxiliary enterprises. 
These activities will be audited again next year and audits of 
other activities will be added. Discussion then turned, he said, 
to Campus Center finances. He said a new manager of the Center 
had already been appointed. The Parking Garage had been separated 
from the Campus Center operation, he said, and had been included 
as a part of the balanced transportation system. It was hoped 
that this would increase usage of the garage, lessening the defi- 
cit, but it was noted that the garage would remain a deficit 
operation until such time as parking rates were substantially in- 
creased. Management of the Campus Center, itself, had improved 



-12- 



I 



I 






4345 



Board 
7/28/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

over the last few years. Trustee Gordon, said Trustee Troy, had 
asked that the new Director of the Center meet with the Committee 
on Budget and Finance at an early date. Since the draft document 
required additional information and clarification on various items 
action had been deferred until the next meeting of the Committee. 

Trustee Troy said that President Wood had then commented 
on the guidelines for the preparation of FY 1978 Operating Budget 
submissions from the campuses. The guidelines, he said, maintain- 
ed enrollment levels, maintained faculty workload, and asked the 
campuses to give priority after this to student affairs, a review 
of administrative costs with an eye toward economy, and to an in- 
crease in Library acquisitions. 

Trustee Dennis, said Trustee Troy, had then led a dis- 
cussion on the matter of audits, how extensive they should be, 
and to whom reports should be made. 

Chairman Healey then announced that he had appointed 
Trustee Crain to the chairmanship of the Committee on Budget and 
Finance. 

Chairman Healey asked next for the report of the Ad Hoc 
Committee on the Search Process. Trustee Morgenthau reported 



that a copy of the Committee's report had been circulated to the 
Trustees and explained the process by which the Committee had 
arrived at its recommendations. Since Trustee Breyer could not 
3e present, he had submitted his written comments, she said. He 
had questioned under Qualifications for the next President the 
wording in 2) "a record of participation in the political process. 
She said her interpretation of "political process" was participa- 
tion in public service and administrative experience. She asked 
if the Board would object to this change. There was no objection. 
Since the Committee must be small to be workable, it had to limit 
membership to those bodies most vitally concerned., Discussion 
ensued. It was suggested that since the search for a new presi- 
dent might not be completed by the time President Wood departed, 
interim plans were necessary to provide for an Acting President. 
The necessity of a job description was emphasized, and the need 
for agreement of the Board members as to the type of person 
desired to fill the position. It was agreed that it was important 
to determine the process for the selection of the President, even 
though more time might be necessary to agree upon the job descrip- 
tion. The importance of having advisory groups to assist the 
Search Committee was also discussed. With regard to the composi- 
tion of the Committee, she said, it had been agreed that all mem- 
bers should serve as individuals and not as delegates and that the 

'public member" could be broadly interpreted to mean, for example, 
a Trustee. Trustee Morgenthau said it would be impossible to 
obtain good candidates unless the Acting President was excluded 

rom candidacy for the Presidency. 



-13- 



FY 1978 

Operating 

Budget 



Auditing 



New Budget 
and Finance 
Chairman 

Report of ad 
hoc Committee 
on the Search 
Process 



4346 



Board 
7/28/77 

Statements by 
Representatives 
of Adademic 
Council of 
Deans and 
Faculty 
Senate — 
UM/Amherst 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey said that the Academic Council' — UM/ 
Amherst and the Secretary of the Faculty Senate had asked to ad- 
dress the Board on this issue. Professor Burke said he was ex- 
pressing the views of the Faculty Senate, the Undergraduate Stu- 
dent Senate, the Graduate Student Senate and the Professional 
Association as well as those of the Faculty Senate Rules Commit- 
tee. The Rules Committee, he said, was concerned that no one 
with experience in academic administration was included on the 
Search Committee, that the timetable was very short, and that 
there be consultation with faculty concerning the charge to the 
Search Committee. He urged that the Search Committee proceed in 
accordance with the provisions of the Governance Document. He 
stated his belief that the faculty should be consulted, not only 
in the search process, but also in the composition of the Search 
Committee, and in the exploration of the role of the president. 
He stated his belief that the Trustees could profit from talking 
with students, faculty and administrators on campus. 

Dean Allen, speaking for the Academic Council, said 
they had three concerns: 1) that they have direct and continuous 
input into the process, 2) that consideration be given to individ 
uals within the University as well as outside the University and 
3) the exclusion of the Acting President from consideration for 
the Presidency. 

It was noted that when acting Presidents are allowed to 
succeed to the Presidency, good candidates from outside are reluc 
tant to apply since the acting President has the advantage of be- 
ing on the inside. Questions were raised about the appropriate- 
ness of considering candidates for one position as candidates for 
another position which required quite different qualifications, 
and it was also requested that further discussion take place with 
regard to simultaneous searches. 

After further discussion, the Chairman asked if there 
were any objections to the procedure recommended by the Ad Hoc 
Committee on the Search Process. He then asked for authority to 
appoint the search committee and to appoint the committee to 
advise on the interim acting president with the understanding 
that when the official committee is finally constituted, the job 
description can be developed. 

On motion made and seconded, it was then 

VOTED : To accept the report of the Ad Hoc Committee 
on the Search Process and to authorize the 
Chairman of the Board to appoint five Trustees 
and one public member, who may be a Trustee, 
to the Presidential Search Committee; and 
further to authorize the Chairman of the Board 
to appoint a Committee of five Trustees to con- 
sider the matter of the interim President. 



-14- 



I 



I 



I 



434? 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey said the last item of agenda would be 
a report from the ad hoc Audit Committee chaired by Trustee 
Dennis. This Committee was established for the purpose of study- 
ing the procedures and controls over non-monetary considerations 
and discretionary funds. He said the Trustees might want to con- 
sider whether a standing committee for general audit purposes as 
well ought to be established. He then asked Trustee Dennis to 
report . 

The Committee, Trustee Dennis said, had met on July 21. 
The Committee will review and update the perquisites of the 
senior positions of the University. In order to do this, the 
Committee will set up an outline. They have had a fact-finding 
meeting with the President and the three Chancellors on controls, 
etc. ; and will expand the contract for Hurdman and Cranstoun to 
review the system of approvals set up by the Board, to make rec- 
ommendations on controls. President Wood, he said, had requested 
that his accounts be audited before he leaves office. The ad hoc 
Audit Committee will do this. They are recommending the estab- 
lishment of a standing Audit Committee. At their first meeting 
they set up an outline of scope. They then met with President 
Wood and Budget Director Hanson to review the perquisites of the 
President's Office and met also with Treasurer Johnson on historic 
cal background and with Associate Vice President Hester on audit 
needs and capacities. The Committee will meet with Hurdman and 
Cranstoun and ask them to report back so that recommendations can 
be made to the Search Committee. The Board ought to know what 
the new president should be offered, he said. 

Chairman Healey asked if the Audit Committee could 
determine what was being done elsewhere. Trustee Dennis said 
they had not looked at this aspect yet. This concluded Trustee 
Dennis' report and the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 



Dorothy Ei&hel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board 
of Trustees 



Board 
7/28/77 



Report of 
ad hoc Audit 
Committee 



-15- 



4348 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 




UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

AMHERST • BOSTON ■ WORCESTER 



OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 
ONE WASHINGTON MALL 
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108 
(617) 723-7820 



September 7, 1977 



MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Secretary Dorothy Eichel 

SUBJECT: Validity of Vote to Reconsider Taken 
Before a Point of Order is Raised 



You have requested my advice as to whether a vote to 
reconsider passed by a majority of the Board of Trustees 
prior to a point of order being raised by a trustee is 
valid. In my opinion, the actual motion to reconsider was 
out of order, but the vote itself is valid because the point 
of order was untimely raised. 

According to information provided, the motion to 
reconsider was made by a trustee delegate who did not vote 
on the prevailing side when the issue was originally con- 
sidered. After debate, the motion to reconsider was passed 
by majority vote, and subsequently a trustee raised a point 
of order on the ground that the motion for reconsideration 
had not been made by someone who had voted in favor of the 
original motion. 

A point of order involves the responsibility of the 
Chairman who, as an elected officer, has "the duties, func- 
tions, powers and responsibilities of his office as pre- 
scribed by the laws of the Commonwealth, these By-laws, 
and parliamentary custom." (Doc. T76-051B77) .Under past 
precedent, resolution of a question of this kind is resolved 
by referring to this country's foremost authority on par- 
liamentary custom. 

The trustee raising the point of order was correct. 
A motion to reconsider "can be made only by a member who 
voted with the prevailing side." Robert, Rules of Order 
Newly Revised 265 (1970). As such, the motion was out of 
order. However, a point of order was raised only after 



I 



I 



I 



-2- 



debate and vote. As stated in Robert, Rules of Order 
Newly Revised 215 (1970): 

"If a question of order is to be raised, it 
must be raised promptly at the time the breach 
occurs. For example, if the chair is stating 
the question on a motion that has not been 
seconded, or on a motion that is out of order 
in the existing parliamentary situation, the time 
to raise these points of order is when the chair 
states the motion. After debate on such a motion 
has begun - no matter how clearly out of order 
the motion may be - a point of order is too late. 
The only exceptions to the foregoing rule arise in 
connection with certain types of breaches that 
are of a continuing nature...." 

This particular breach not being one of a continuing 
nature, in my opinion the point of order was untimely 
raised and the vote is accordingly valid. 



William E. Searson 
General Counsel 



I 






4TTE80A! 



I 



) 



I 



I 



1 



ATTENDANCE 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

September 14, 1977; 2:00 p.m. 

Memorial Hall 

University of Massachusetts/Amherst 

Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Wood; 
Trustees Baker, Batiste, Breyer , Burack, Crain, Dennis, Kassler, 
Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, Robertson, Romer and Troy; 
Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Mr. Parks representing 
Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Bluestone representing Trustee Fielding; 
Mr. Colby representing Trustee Winthrop ; Treasurer Johnson; 
Assistant Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Trustees : Trustees Clark, Gordon, Okin Rowland, Shearer 
and Spiller 

Office of the President : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Ms. Robinson, Vice President for Planning; Mr. Bench, 
Associate Counsel; Ms. Hanson, Budget Director and Associate Vice 
President; Mr. Hester, Associate Vice President for Business 
Services 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Puryear, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Golino; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for 



Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance; Mr. James, Assistant Chancellor; Mr. Prince, Plan- 
ning Office; Professors Martin and Schwartz, Faculty Representa- 
tives 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance 

Guests : Messrs. Cronin and Federow, Students, UM/ Amherst; Ms. 
Pink, Executive Office of Educational Affairs; Ms. Primeau, 
Committee for the Liberation of Southern Africa 

The meeting was called to order at 2:15 p.m. Chairman 
Healey asked if there were any changes or amendments to the min- 
utes of the last meeting. There were none and on motion made and 
seconded it was 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the July 28, 
1977 meeting. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Report of 
Subcommittee on South African Investments. Trustee Batiste said 



4349 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



Report of 
Subcommittee 



4350 



Board 
9/14/77 

on South 

African 

Investments 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the Trustees had voted on April 6, 1977 to direct the Committee 
on Budget and Finance to review University investment policy to 
ensure that the policy would not further South African racial 
policies in any way. On April 22, 1977, the Committee on Budget 
and Finance established the Subcommittee on South African Invest- 
ments to evaluate University holdings in corporations operating 
in South Africa. The Subcommittee determined that there were 
twenty such corporations and the actions and policies in South 
Africa of each corporation were examined. The data used included 
responses from the corporations to letters of inquiry from the 
Subcommittee, annual reports of the corporations, reports of in- 
terest groups such as the Investors Responsibilities Research 
Center and the Center for Social Action of the United Church of 
Christ, and material supplied by students, staff and faculty. 
After many hours of analyzing the data the Subcommittee agreed to 
rate each corporation as follows: 

A. Positive. This rating indicated that the corporation 
had taken at least one of these steps — 

1. Signed the "Statement of Principles of U.S. Firms 
with Affiliates in the Republic of South Africa." 

2 . Moved beyond the minimum required of them in 
employment, fringe benefits and social programs 
for blacks and coloreds. 

3. Pressed the South African Government for changes 
in the repressive racial laws. 

4. Brought about improvements in spite of the laws. 

B. Insufficient or nonconclusive evidence — additional evi- 
dence would be sought regarding these corporations. 

C. Failure to meet University Investment Policy Guidelines- 
divestiture of holdings was recommended for corporations so 
rated . 

Trustee Batiste noted that the Subcommittee would con- 
tinue to monitor the performance of corporations in South Africa 
and that a number of institutions, including the University of 
Maryland, Stanford University, the University of California and 
Hampshire College, were investigating their investments in corpo- 
rations operating in South Africa. She then introduced Claudia 
Primeau, a student at Amherst. 

Speaking as a representative of the Committee for the 
Liberation of Southern Africa, Ms. Primeau said she wished to ad- 
dress the Trustees as to their position regarding the University's 
holdings in corporations doing business in Southern Africa. A 
decision to retain holdings in some such companies, to further 



-2- 



r 



I 



I 






UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

investigate others and to divest holdings in yet others, she said 
would be at best a needless postponement and at worst an unlawful 
evasion of the University's legal and moral responsibilities. 
The Committee did not feel that the specific practices of these 
corporations were relevant issues. United States firms operating 
in South Africa were the primary suppliers of critically needed 
technology and capital and, as such, were actively strengthening 
and perpetuating a system of apartheid, which system was the cor- 
nerstone of the South African economy. The involvement of the 
corporations in apartheid was not a matter of corporate policy, 
but was structurally inherent in the political and economic rela- 
tions in South Africa. Therefore, the Committee believed that, 
in line with University regulations and in line with the Univer- 
sity's role as a promoter of social values, it was the Board's 
responsibility to divest itself immediately of all holdings in 
corporations involved in South Africa. She noted that at a recent 
meeting at the University of California over fifty universities 
and church groups had met in order to organize the divestment of 
holdings in corporations involved in South Africa, and that severs 
municipal governments had prohibited purchases from such corpo- 
rations. In Wisconsin, she continued, the Attorney General had 
ruled that the University of Wisconsin's holdings in corporations 
investing in South Africa were in violation of state law. 

At the Amherst campus, she said, petitions calling for 
divestment had been signed by more than 2,000 people, and widely 
attended teach-ins and rallies had been organized in support of 
the liberation struggles in South Africa. She concluded by 
saying that the Committee demanded that the University divest all 
of the investments in the sixteen corporations doing business in 
South Africa and publicize the reasons for doing so. 

Trustee Batiste then made the following motion which 
was seconded: 

MOVED : After review of the Endowment Fund investments 

in companies engaged in business in South Africa 
and on the basis of information available includ- 
ing corporate responses to specific questions, 
to divest University holdings in the following 
companies which do not measure up to the Univer- 
sity's Investment Policy Guidelines adopted by 
the Board of Trustees on January 31, 1973, as 
recommended by the Trustee Subcommittee on Invest- 
ments in South Africa, namely: 

Amax Inc . 

FMC Corporation 

Newmont Mining Corporation 

Investments in the following companies will be 
retained, having met or exceeded the policy 
guidelines : 



Board 
9/14/77 



-3- 



4352 



Board 
9/14/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Caterpillar 

Exxon 

General Electric Company 

General Motors Corporation 

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company 

Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company 

Motorola, Inc. 

Southern Company — is not engaged in business 

per se in South Africa 
Xerox Corporation 

Investments in the following companies will be 
retained for further review in three months by 
the subcommittee following communication to 
management by the Treasurer urging greater af- 
firmative action on their part to improve the 
economic and social conditions of blacks and 
coloreds in South Africa: 

Eli Lilly 

Honeywell 

IBM 

Johnson & Johnson 

Kodak 

Nabisco 

Pfizer 

Smithkline 

Mr. Parks said he was deeply opposed to the policy 
which said that American companies should continue to operate in 
South Africa. He said he would accept the Subcommittee's recom- 
mendation as an interim step. Removing economic support would 
bring the South African government down much faster than any 
other means. He said that the only ultimate objective that any 
of the Trustees could have for South Africa was the toppling of 
the present government and full and equal representation of the 
majority population in the government. Chairman Healey said he 
did not see that this was inconsistent with the Subcommittee's 
recommendation. Mr. Parks said he found the recommendation that 
the University continue to hold investments in South Africa abhor 
rent. Trustee McNeil said her first inclination was to vote 
against the motion. She appreciated the hard work that the Sub- 
committee had done; however, philosophically, she did not feel 
that the Trustees should support any company that was currently 
involved in South Africa. The holdings there should be divested 
as quickly as possible. 

Trustee Morgenthau said she too appreciated the hard 
work of the Subcommittee. She said that if one were to address 
the question of what workable means were available to bring about 
meaningful changes in the distribution of wealth in South Africa, 
one could say that there were several such means. The Subcommit- 



r 



I 



-4- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

tee's recommendation was but one of these means; however, it was 
not one that would necessarily lead to the desired result. She 
said she would vote for the recommendation because the Trustees 
needed to take a stand and the matter needed further study. Real 
change would only occur if pressure were applied by the govern- 
ments of the United States and other countries. In sum, the Trus- 
tees should make it clear where they stood and then pressure the 
federal government to take action. Trustee Batiste said that she 
personally would like to see divestment of holdings in all corpo- 
rations operating in South Africa. She viewed the Subcommittee's 
recommendation as a first step in the process. 

Chancellor Bromery said that the University should not 
invest in corporations doing business in South Africa. He sug- 
gested that Investment Counsel could be asked to provide a list 
of alternative investments in corporations that have no activities 
in South Africa, thus enabling the Board to discharge its fiduci- 
ary and social responsibilities. Mr. Parks said he would offer 
this suggestion as a substitute motion. The motion was seconded. 
Chairman Healey called for discussion on the substitute motion. 

Trustee Crain said it was his perception that it would 
be a time-consuming chore to identify corporations that weren't 
involved in any way in South Africa. Mr. Parks said he assumed 
it would be time-consuming to do so, but not impossible. The im- 
portant thing was the objective involved. Trustee Kassler said 
he viewed the Subcommittee motion as a first step and suggested 
that the Trustees consider an amendment to the motion asking In- 
vestment Counsel to prepare a review of corporate policies in 
South Africa with a view to divestiture. Also, he continued, he 
suggested that the Board ask the Attorney General for an opinion 
as to whether or not the University's investments in South Africa 
and other nations with an apartheid policy were consistent with 
state law and public policy. He asked that those who moved the 
substitute motion withdraw it for the purpose of immediate votes 
on the Subcommittee motions, a review of alternative investments 
and a request for an opinion from the Attorney General. Mr. 
Parks said he would be opposed to withdrawing the motion; however 
he would accept the proposal for a review of alternative invest- 
ments as an addendum to his motion. He said the matter of going 
to the Attorney General should be a separate motion. Chairman 
Healey said the Attorney General should be asked to pass on legal- 
ity, not on public policy. 

Treasurer Johnson said the Subcommittee motion was re- 
sponsive to the Trustee vote asking for a review of holdings in 
the context of Trustee investment policy; the substitute motion 
seemed to call for a change in policy. Chairman Healey said that 
the Board could establish policy from time to time. It was his 
understanding that the substitute motion cut across the question 
of procedure and said, in effect, "We're going to the heart of th£ 
policy, that is, a complete divestiture of holdings in companies 



435; 



-5- 



Board 
9/14/77 



4354 



Board 
9/14/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

which have interests in South or Southern Africa." He said he 
assumed an orderly divestiture within a reasonable period, that 
is, a period of 90 days, was being proposed. 

Trustee Marks asked if holdings in all companies , with 
one possible exception, analyzed by the Subcommittee would be 
divested. He was told this was the case. Trustee Morgenthau 
said she wanted to know the logical conclusion of what the vote 
would entail. She noted that United States companies which ap- 
parently had no operations in South Africa could be part of a 
multinational corporation. Non-United States affiliates of the 
same corporation might have direct investments in South Africa 
and part of the profits from those investments would be remitted 
to the United States company. The interdependencies were such 
that the University could be reduced to investing in government 
bonds. Chairman Healey said he did not think the Board would be 
so restricted. 



I 



There was no further discussion and it was moved, sec- 



onded and 



VOTED : To amend the Guidelines for the Investment of 
the Endowment Fund (Doc. T73-093) by inserting 
the following paragraph: 

"2a. The University will not invest 
in corporations or businesses that 
operate in South Africa or in countries 
that have similar apartheid racial 
policies. 

Further, to instruct the University's Investment 
Counsel to recommend to the Board of Trustees 
within a reasonable time a program for the order- 
ly divestiture of stock it now holds in corpora- 
tions operating in South Africa; and to make rec- 
ommendations for the re-investment of funds real- 
ized from the divestiture. 

Chairman Healey said the Board would go into executive 
session in order to discuss personnel matters, after which it 
would return to open session. Without discussion, at 3:15 p.m., 
it was moved, seconded and 



I 



Executive 
Session 



VOTED : To enter executive session. 

At 5:10 p.m., it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To conclude the executive session. 

The Board returned to open session, and without discus- 
sion, it was moved, seconded and 



-6- 



I 



VOTED 



and further 



VOTED : 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

To rescind the vote of the Board of Trustees on 
June 1, 1977, limiting the terms of office of 
senior personnel of the University to age 65. 



That the Board will take under advisement and 
place on the agenda of the October meeting the 
issue of the pleasure of the Board on Chancellor 
Golino's appointment. 



The meeting then turned to the vote on Classification 
of Position Title — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-015) . Chairman Healey 
noted that it came with the recommendation of the Committee on 
Health Affairs and the Executive Committee. Without discussion, 
it was moved, seconded and 



4355 



Board 
9/14/77 



VOTED : To approve the classification of position title 
as detailed in Trustee Doc. T78-015. 

Trustees Baker, Batiste, Burack, Grain, Marks and Kassler voted 
against the motion. Trustees Burack and Crain said their negative 
votes were based on the failure to establish the need for the 
position prior to the presentation of the candidate. Trustee 
Kassler said he was opposed because the need for the position had 
not been established, and there was failure to demonstrate that tt 
qualifications of the candidate met the need. He said he consid- 
ered the presenting of a candidate prior to the Trustees analyzing 
a proposed position an improper practice. Trustee Marks said he 
was opposed because of insufficient time to evaluate the refer- 
ences and performance of the candidate. 

Ms. Bluestone said she was opposed to the position be- 
cause of the process used whereby candidates were presented prior 
to the establishment of the need for the position. She said she 
was not convinced of the need for the position. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Personnel 
Action — UM/Worcester/Search Committee (Doc. T78-016 and Doc. 



UM/Worcester — 
Classification 
of Position 
Title 
(Doc. T78-015) 






T78-017) . Without discussion, it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as detailed 
in Trustee Doc. T78-017. 

Trustees Batiste and Kassler voted against the motion with respect: 
to the Senior Consultant. Trustee Batiste felt the process had 
been unjust, the appointment having been made without a search 
procedure or advertisement of the position opening. Trustee 
Kassler said he voted against the motion because he was again 
disturbed by the process. At the July 28, 1977 meeting of the 
Board, the Trustees voted to establish a committee for the presi- 
dential search. At that time, it was also indicated that the 



■7- 



UM/Worcester 
and Search 
Committee 
Personnel 
Actions — 
(Doc. T78-016 
and T78-017) 



Board 
9/14/77 



UM/Boston — 
Awarding of 
Honorary 
Degrees 



Report of 
Committee 
on Buildings 
and Grounds 



UM/ Amherst — 
Extension of 
Bus Service 
(Doc. T78-014) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

general statements and job description of the presidency would be 
the first order of business of the search committee. He said he 
was disturbed to find out that the committee had hired a senior 
consultant from within the University, a policy question that he 
felt was a matter for the consideration of the full Board. It 
was a policy with which he disagreed greatly. Further, the con- 
sultant was again hired and representation made that the consult- 
ant would be paid more than the standard without a Board vote. 
He said he thought the faculty and students should have been al- 
lowed to organize a committee before the consultant was hired and 
the position vacancy advertised. Also, the Trustees should have 
developed a job description indicating what the Trustees were 
looking for in the next president. For these reasons, he had 
voted against the motion and called on the Search Committee to 
henceforth carry out the July mandate. 

Ms. Bluestone said she was opposed to the motion for 
the reasons Trustee Kassler had stated. 

Chairman Healey said there had been a procedural mixup 
with regard to the personnel action at Worcester detailed in Doc. 
T78-016. President Wood asked if there were any votes on Doc. 
T78-016 that were different from those recorded on Doc. T78-015. 
There were none. It was therefore, 

VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action detailed in 
Trustee Doc. T78-016. 

Chairman Healey asked if the Trustees understood that the vote 
previously taken referred to the personnel action for the Search 
Committee (Doc. T78-017) . There were no expressions of misunder- 
standing. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Awarding of 
Honorary Degrees at UM/Boston. There was no discussion and it 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the Boston campus to present to 
the Board of Trustees lists of candidates for 
Honorary Degrees to be awarded at the UM/Boston 
Commencement, beginning in 1978. 

The meeting then turned to the report of the Committee 
on Buildings and Grounds. In Trustee Spiller's absence, Trustee 
McNulty said the Trustees should refer to the minutes of the 
August 26 meeting of the Committee for a thorough explanation of 
the discussion that went on. Without further discussion, it was 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the Chancellor of the University of 
Massachusetts at Amherst, in consultation with 
the President of the University, to execute an 
agreement with the Pioneer Valley Transit Author- 



I 



I 



-8- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

ity for the use of land at the Amherst campus 
for the construction and operation of a bus 
maintenance facility as set forth in Document 
T78-014. 



and further 



VOTED: 



To amend the vote of May 5, 1976, to include an 
authorization to the Chancellor of the Amherst 
campus to negotiate and execute agreements with 
the Towns of Belchertown and Sunderland for sub- 
mission of joint petitions for funding, operation 
and provision of bus services, so that said vote 
shall read as follows: 



VOTED : To authorize the Chancellor of 
the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst, in consultation with 
the President of the University, 
to negotiate and execute agreements 
with the Towns of Amherst, Belcher- 
town and Sunderland, to submit with 
said Towns joint petitions to the 
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority 
for the funding and operation of a 
transit system, and to negotiate and 
execute operating contracts with the 
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority to 
provide bus services as described 
in the agreement with the Towns of 
Amherst, Belchertown and Sunderland, 
the joint petitions and Trustee 
Documents T76-074 and T78-014. 

In the matter of the use of 100 Arlington as a Univer- 
sity Center, Trustee Burack said the building had real possibil- 
ities and said she thought the renovation process should begin. 
In response to her query, President Wood assured Trustee McNeil 
that the contemplated renovations and moves would not endanger 
the College of Public and Community Service. Without further 
discussion, it was moved, seconded and 



4357 






Board 
9/14/77 



VOTED: 



To adopt the concept of renovating the 
building at 100 Arlington Street as a 
University Center, as outlined in Doc. 
T78-018, with an emphasis on educational 
activities and lifelong learning. 

To seek immediate funding of $980,000 
for renovating four floors of the building 
to a permanent standard, including two 
floors for the President and central Univer- 



Use of 100 
Arlington 
Street as 
University- 
wide Facility 
(Doc. T78-018) 



-9- 



4358 



Board 
9/14/77 



Report of 
Committee 
on Budget 
and Finance 



UM/Amherst — 

FY 1978 

Revenue-based 

Budget 

(Doc. T77-078A) 

UM/Boston — 

FY 1978 

Fee-based 

Budget 

(Doc. T78-012) 

UM/Wo re ester — 

FY 1978 

Fee-based 

Budget 

(Doc. T77-087) 

FY 1978 

Operating 

Budget 

(Doc. T77-128) 



FY 1979 
Maintenance 
Budget Request 
(Doc. T77-129) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

sity administration, as outlined in Doc. 
T78-018 under Option A. 

3. To support all possible steps to complete 
the first phase of renovation and the re- 
location of the central offices as rapidly 
as possible consistent with responsible 
construction standards and the continued 
effective functioning of the offices involved. 

The meeting then turned to the report of the Committee 
on Budget and Finance. Chairman Healey said that in his mind the 
job of Chairman of that Committee was the toughest assignment of 
the Board and that Trustee Crain should know the Trustees were 
grateful for his willingness to serve. Trustee Crain said the 
Committee had met on August 31 and September 14 and had devoted 
six hours to examining the FY78/79 budgets in detail. He noted 
that the documents had been distributed to the other Trustees as 
well. There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 



I 



VOTED : 



and also 



VOTED : 



and further 



VOTED 



It was then 



VOTED 



To approve the FY 1978 Revenue-based Budget, 
University of Massachusetts at Amherst (Doc. 
T77-078A). 



To approve the FY 1978 Fee-based Budget, 
University of Massachusetts at Boston (Doc 
T78-012). 



To approve the FY 1978 Fee-based Budget, 
University of Massachusetts at Worcester 
(Doc. T77-087). 



To approve the FY 1978 Operating Budget for the 
University of Massachusetts as contained in Doc. 
T77-128. 



I 



and also 



VOTED : To approve the FY 1979 Maintenance Budget Request 
as set forth in Doc. T77-129. 

In the matter of the proposed authorization of signa- 
ture, Trustee Burack said the authorization seemed to be almost 
limitless, particularly when there appeared to be no one else 
empowered to sign such documents. Chancellor Bromery said the 
authority was unexceptional and necessary, and that he also had. 



-10- 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the authority to sign. There was no further discussion and it 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize James L. McBee, Jr. , Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance, Amherst Campus, 
in his capacity as an officer, to sign and execute 
singly and without any co-signature, any and all 
documents and instruments relating to expenditure 
of funds, requests for funds, vouchers, warrants, 
schedules, invoices, certificates and also all 
documents and instruments of every nature and kind 
as all the aforesaid may from time to time be re- 
quired to be drawn or executed under the provi- 
sions of MGL Chapter 75, Section 8. 

Trustee Crain noted that the Committee had heard a brief report 
on the Group Practice Plan and there were no problems. 

The meeting then turned to the report of the Committee 
on Faculty and Educational Policy. There was no discussion and 
it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED 



I 



To concur in the President's award of tenure 
to those faculty members named in Doc. T77- 
111, addendum 3, of July 21, 1977. 



and also 



VOTED : 



To concur in the appointment of Bruce MacDougall 
by the President as Professor of Landscape 
Architecture and Regional Planning with tenure 
at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst 
as set forth in Doc. T78-009. 



and further 



VOTED 



I 



To concur in the appointment of David Drachman 
by the President as Professor of Neurology with 
tenure at the University of Massachusetts at 
Worcester as set forth in Doc. T78-010. 



Trustee Troy said the Committee had received a tenure appeal. 
This had been referred to the President for review and recommen- 
dation. 

Trustee Troy then said that Trustee Robertson, who had 
had to leave, had asked him to report that the Health Affairs 
Committee had reported to the Executive Committee at the morning 
meeting that the September 15 meeting of the Health Affairs Com- 
mittee had been cancelled. 

Trustee Baker, noting Trustee Shearer's absence and the 
lateness of the hour, said she would forward a report on the 



-11- 



Board 
9/14/77 



UM/Amherst — 
Authorization 
of Signature 



Group Practice 
Plan 

Report of 
Committee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 

UM/Amherst and 
UM/ Bos ton — 
Promotions to 
Tenure (Doc. 
T77-111, A3) 
UM/Amherst — 
New Appointment 
with Tenure 
(Doc. T78-009) 



UM/Worcester — 
New Appointment 
with Tenure 
(Doc. T78-010) 

Tenure Appeal 



Committee on 
Health Affairs 



Committee on 
Student Affairs 



4360 



Board 
9/14/77 



Report of 
Presidential 
Search 
Committee 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

September 8 meeting of the Committee on Student Affairs to the 
Secretary's Office for distribution to the Trustees. (The report 
is appended to these minutes.) The meeting had been held jointly 
with the Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy to discuss 
tuition waiver policies. More questions had been raised than 
answered. As a result, the Central Office staff had been asked 
to supply additional information. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Presidential 
Search Committee. Trustee Breyer said that at one of the two 
meetings held by the Committee, student and faculty members of 
the Committee had been selected. Also, Professor Dorothy Marshal] 
had been asked to serve as Senior Consultant subject to confirma- 
tion by the Trustees, which confirmation had been given earlier 
in the meeting. Trustee Dennis had drawn up a budget which had 
been circulated to the Trustees. Trustee Breyer said he assumed 
the budget, as well as the selection of Professor Marshall, had 
the approval of the Trustees. He said that if anyone had a ques- 
tion about the budget he would like to hear it so as to be certain 
that all Trustees agreed with the budget. There were no question^, 
and it was therefore 

VOTED : To approve the budget as presented by the 
Search Committee and the proposed salary 
schedules as contained therein. 



There were a number of substantive points, Trustee 
Breyer continued. The Committee was more an arm of the Trustees 
than many other Committees in the sense that it had less inde- 
pendence than did other committees. The Committee existed only 
because it was administratively impractical for every Trustee to 
engage directly in the entire search process. For this reason, 
there had to be continuous communication between the Committee 
members and the other Trustees. He asked that the Trustees feel 
it an obligation rather than a right to talk to members of the 
Committee. Such communication would keep the Trustees informed 
of the Committee's actions and deliberations and would inform 
the Committee of the Trustees' thoughts on three basic questions- 
what kind of a person was being sought; why that kind of person; 
and who the person should be. Somehow, he said, the views of all 
Trustees and of other segments of the University had to be solic- 
ited . 

The Committee urged the Trustees to talk with other 
people as well as those connected with the University. The pro- 
cess, he stressed, must be as open as possible. When convenient, 
communications should be in writing. In the matter of confiden- 
tiality, he said, problems only arose when individual candidates 
were involved, not when questions such as what kind of person and 
why that kind of person were being discussed. 

In regard to communications with faculty and students, 
he said, committees had now been established on each campus. 



I 



I 



■12- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

These Committees would have to define their own methods of proce- 
dure; however, each was aware of the necessity to communicate as 
widely as possible with groups on the campuses and to convey to 
the Search Committee the sense of these communications. Last, he 
said, the Committee was now actively seeking applications and 
nominations and if anyone had knowledge of any person who was be- 
lieved to be qualified to be the President of the University, that; 
person's name should be submitted to the Committee in writing. 

Chairman Healey urged that the Search Committee respond 
to comments made earlier concerning the establishment of job de- 
scriptions and related matters. Trustee Breyer said these matters 
had been discussed and it had been decided that this should be an 
on-going process. That is, ideas received which related to the 
job description would be considered. As a matter of practicality, 
he said, the Committee could not rewrite the governance document 
by redefining a job that was described in Board policy. What 
could be done was to try to amalgamate criteria received into the 
discussion of particular applications and nominations. 

Trustee Kassler said he felt it important to restate 
some of the points he had previously made. Before any applicant/ 
nominee for the presidency was interviewed, it would be imperative 
to understand the criteria upon which the person was to be hired. 
If there was no consensus of the Trustees on what kind of person 
was sought, then the Trustees should not be considering anyone 
for the post. It was his recollection that the Committee for the 
Process for Selecting a President had said that the first job of 
the Search Committee would be the fleshing out of the job criteria 
for the presidency. He requested that the Senior Consultant ad- 
dress herself to the collection of proposals for criteria and job 
description rather than seeking candidates for the job. Communi- 
cations on these matters, he said, should not be between individual 
Trustees and the members of the Search Committee; rather the Boarc. 
of Trustees as a whole should hear from faculty and student com- 
mittees and these groups together should form the criteria upon 
which the Search Committee would then begin examining individual 
candidates. He stressed that nothing in the search for a presi- 
dent was more important than an orderly process. He said his 
understanding of the representations made to the Board in July 
was that work on the criteria would be done first. Apparently 
the Search Committee was developing the criteria at the same time 
candidates were being sought. From his point of view, this was 
entirely improper and incorrect. 



Speaking as a member of the Search Committee, Trustee 
Dennis said he was not sure that both assignments could not be 
done at the same time. The matter had been discussed by the Com- 
mittee and it was felt that the Committee did not have the author- 
ity to unilaterally establish a job description. Trustee Dennis 
said he was aware of the importance of this matter, but there were 
time constraints involved. 



4361 



Board 
9/14/77 



-13- 



4362 



Board 
9/14/77 



Report of ad 
hoc Audit 
Committee 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Kassler said that while President Wood was leav- 
ing as of January 1, 1978, it was his understanding that the Board 
was not committed to a January 1 deadline for hiring a new presi- 
dent. The process could well take until June or even longer. If 
the Search Committee was operating under a misapprehension about 
a deadline, the Board should correct this. 



Chairman Healey said there was no formal deadline of 
January 1, 1978. He said that he would soon announce the estab- 
lishment of an Interim President Committee and the Trustees would 
be so informed by mail. The Trustees should realize what was in- 
volved in establishing a set of criteria for the presidency, as 
this would cut across the whole philosophy of the management of 
the University. He suggested that even without such criteria, 
there were a number of people in the United States who could be 
candidates for president of the University. He said he did not 
see why the process of seeking a president could not continue, 
with the understanding that there would not be an unlimited amoun 
of time devoted to completing the job description. He said he 
would not like to see the Board bogged down in re-examining the 
concept of the central office, its functional relationships with 
the campuses, and the matter of appointment authority. He noted 
that many appointments by the Chancellors and the President did 
not come to the Board for approval, and he cautioned that if the 
Board were to become directly involved with appointments at all 
levels, even greater demands would be made on the Trustees. The 
Board, in his mind, was already the hardest working board with 
which he had ever been associated, he said. There was a happy 
medium somewhere in continuing the search process and at the same 
time making the necessary redefinitions in the job description. 

Trustee Crain said that until the Search Committee had 
a sense of the consensus of the Board on the criteria, it would 
be impossible to process any applications. Trustee Breyer said 
the Committee was not starting from nowhere; the Governance docu- 
ment did establish criteria. Chairman Healey asked if the Search 
Committee could report at the October meeting and speak to the 
concerns expressed by the Trustees. Trustee Breyer said this 
would be done. 



Reporting for the ad hoc Audit Committee, Trustee Dennip 
said a report would be made at the October Board meeting on the 
on-going survey of trust-fund expenditures. Also, it was intended 
to recommend to the Board that the Audit Committee become a stand- 
ing committee of the Board. As part of the job of defining the 
scope of the proposed committee, he said, a meeting would be held 
with the Chancellors on September 28, 1977. The recommendation 
would entail amending the By-laws. The Trustees had to be notified 
thirty days prior to action on such amendments, and it was hoped 
that the matter would be on the agenda of the November Board meet 
ing. 



I 



I 



-14- 



I 






UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



4363 



Board 
9/14/77 

Report of 



Education 



Trustee Troy gave his report as representative to the 
Board of Higher Education. The Board, he said, had met in special^ Delegate to 
session on August 15 to determine if Grahm Junior College was in Board of Higher 
a position to open in September, 1977. At the regular session on 
August 19, it was voted to suspend the degree granting authority 
of Grahm until it had complied with certain conditions. Trustee 
Troy concluded his report by resigning as Representative to the 
Board of Higher Education. 

There was no further business to come before the Board, 
and the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. 




) licUjdL 



Dorothy Eicnel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board 
of Trustees 



-15- 



J 



4364 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



Addendum to the Minutes of the September 14, 1977 meeting of the Board 

Committee on Student Affairs 
September 8, 1977 Meeting 
Report by Trustee Baker 

The Student Affairs Committee and the Faculty and Educational 
Policy Committee met on Thursday, September 8, 1977. 

Prior to the discussion of the single agenda item of the 
Tuition Waiver Policy, Vice Chancellor Woodbury and Vice Chancellor 
Tubbs spoke briefly on the opening days of the fall semester. While 
both campuses experienced the usual amount of first day confusion, 
the Amherst campus had a specific problem of insufficient housing. 
It was reported that, hopefully, this immediate concern would be 
resolved shortly. The Student Affairs Committee has tentative plans to 
review the housing situation at its November meeting. 

Sylvia Simmons made a presentation regarding the present 
tuition waiver policy program. The presentation in addition to the 
information contained in a report from President Wood, previously 
forwarded to committee members, provided the material for a lengthy 
discussion by both Trustees and staff. 

The following points were re-emphasized: 

1. The Board of Trustees has a clear, legal authority 
to establish a program of tuition waivers. 

2. The Board has firmly established the category of 
financial need as one of the criteria used in determining recipients 
of tuition waivers, — the most recent act of the Board was in 1977 when 
the Board extended the need-based tuition waiver program until 1979. 

3. Tuition waivers may be granted for the following 
reasons : 

a. as a means of providing support to eligible 
graduate students , thus insuring the continuation 
of the graduate programs. 

b. as a courtesy to those assisting in an educational 
service to students in return for a valuable 
service. 

c. as a result of a legislative mandate (i.e. , veterans) 

d. as an agreement under the Regional Student Exchange 
Program. 

The Committee then turned its attention to the review of the 
proposed category "Significant Service and Contributions to the Univer- 
sity," — and, in particular, the athletic tuition waiver policy which 
would grant a limited number of waivers to students with outstanding 
athletic ability and potential. 

More questions were raised than were satisfactorily answered. 
It seemed to be the consensus of the group that it is not now clear 



I 



II 



exactly what and how services could be legitimately defined as "signif- 
icant." In addition, several members expressed a serious concern about 
whether the University should "reward" students for participating in 
activities which might normally be seen as a natural part of college 
experience. At the same time, members felt that it might exclude 
coming freshmen from being eligible for consideration, since they would 
not have had an opportunity to demonstrate "a significant contribution 
to the University." 

As expected, the subject of the athletic tuition waivers 
took a considerable amount of discussion. Members of both committees 
requested staff obtain additional information and clarification as to 
the development of criteria for eligibility, and guidelines for imple- 
mentation. 

A sampling of other comments and/or questions raised were: 

1. What services or needs are missing from the present 
package, and which of these could best be met by another approach — 
such as a direct reimbursement or salary for services? 

2. How have other comparable institutions dealt with 
this question? 

Since it was felt that answers to these and other expressed 
concerns would require a considerable amount of staff time , the Committee 
will not meet this month. The requested information will be sent to 
members prior to the October meeting. 

I would like to recommend that the report on the Tuition 
Waiver Policy be made available to all Trustees. 



1 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

October 5, 1977; 2:00 p.m. 
Chancellor's Conference Room 
University of Massachusetts/Boston 

Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Wood; 
Trustees Breyer, Baker, Batiste, Burack, Clark, Crain, Dennis, 
Gordon, Kassler, Marks, McNeil, Morgenthau, Robertson, Romer, 
Shearer, Spiller, and Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee 
Anrig; Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Blues tone 
representing Trustee Fielding; Ms. Kaplan representing Trustee 
Okin; Mr. Colby representing Trustee Winthrop; Assistant Secretary 
Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent : Trustees McNulty and Rowland 

Office of the President : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Ms. Robinson, Vice President for Planning; Mr. Searson, 
General Counsel; Ms. Hanson, Budget Director and Associate Vice 
President; Mr. Hester, Associate Vice President for Business 
1 Services 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. McBee, Vice Chancellor for 
Administration and Finance; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Mr. Beatty, Director, Office of Budget; Professor 
Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Golino; Professors Martin and Schwartz, 



Faculty Representatives 

UM/Worcester : Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor for Administration 
and Finance 

Guest : Ms. Pinck, Office of Educational Affairs 

The meeting came to order at 2:05 p.m. Chairman Healey 



4365 



asked if there were any additions or changes to the minutes of thi Minutes of 



last meeting. There were none, and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the September 14, 1977 
meeting. 

Chairman Healey then called on Trustee Gordon to offer 
a resolution honoring the memory of Treasurer Johnson. Trustee 
Gordon read as follows: 



Approval of 



Prior Meeting 



RESOLVED : 



For a quarter of a century, Ken Johnson served 
the University of Massachusetts as its Treasurer, 
but that title does not begin to indicate the 
breadth and depth of his service. 



Resolution 
honoring the 
memory of 
Treasurer 
Johnson 



4366 



Board 
10/5/77 



Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

More than any other single individual, he 
guided and participated in the development of 
the University from a single campus of 4,000 
students to a multi-campus system of more than 
30,000. In particular, he was the single most 
important guiding force in the physical de- 
velopment of the Amherst campus. 

As Treasurer, Ken Johnson had a broad range 
of responsibilities for the financial manage- 
ment of the University. The position is one 
which requires its holder to say "no" frequently; 
Ken was able to be firm without being unfriendly. 

He was sometimes asked — as in the recent 
divestiture of stocks with South African connec- 
tions — to carry out a policy with which he 
might not fully agree; yet, agree with it or not, 
he always sought to carry out his responsibilities 
to the fullest of his ability. 

He was a modest man, never seeking public 
credit or recognition for himself. Yet all of 
us who have known and worked with Ken Johnson 
know how much we, and the University of 
Massachusetts, will miss him. 

The resolution was passed unanimously. Trustee Gordon 
said he also wished to note that he had worked with Mr. Johnson 
since 1952 and that as an officer of the University he had put 
forth a superhuman effort. 

Chairman Healey then moved to enter executive session 
to discuss personnel matters and honorary degrees. At 2:10 p.m., 
without discussion, it was seconded, and on roll call 



I 



I 



VOTED 



To enter executive session, 



At 3:55 it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED 



To end the executive session, 



Presidential 
Agenda 



The meeting then turned to the Presidential Agenda. 
President Wood thanked the Board for its resolution for Mr. 
Johnson. He recalled that the Treasurer had been the first 
officer he had met on coming to the University. Mr. Johnson, 
said, had adapted well to the many dramatic changes that had 
occurred over the years, and his death had cost the University a 
major vital resource. 



he 



-2- 



" 



Board 
SACHUS 10/5/77 

Activities which the Trustees should be aware of, he 
continued, included the dedication of the Center for Economic 
Development at Amherst on October 3, attended by the Governor, 
the Secretary of Educational Affairs, and representatives of the 
Congressional delegation. 

The President reminded the Trustees that at the 
February 2, 1977, meeting of the Executive Committee, common 
support activities between the Council for Northeast Economic 
Action and the University had been discussed. Since that time, 
a task force of a dozen faculty members, chaired by Professor 
Craig Moore of the School of Business Administration, working with 
members of the Council and members of the Northeast Congressional 
delegation, had developed a number of policy papers on matters 
such as the fiscal impact of welfare reform, the measuring of 
unemployment, and the allocation of federal funds within the 
region. President Wood said this union of academics and policy 
people had worked extremely well. He expressed his gratitude to 
the participating faculty members. Activities would continue, he 
said, and the Council, the University and the Boston Globe were 
sponsoring a conference at Amherst on December 2 and 3 for 
publishers , editors and reporters from the entire New England 
region. The meeting was seen as a first step in focussing the 
attention of the media on the economic condition of the Northeast 
and increasing its understanding of problems and potential. 

As to the status of legal developments, the President 
said, the record of the office of General Counsel continued un- 
blemished; it had yet to lose a single case in which the University 
had become a party. Recently, in Federal District Court, a case 
concerning a denial of tenure had been dismissed. In a suit 
centering on the state's meals tax, the position of the University 
and several other educational institutions had been upheld. In 
the matter of the physical education building at Boston, court pr 
ceedings had been completed and a decision was expected in a few 
weeks. 

Finally, the President continued, the Trustees would 
deal with the principal business of the Budget and Finance and 
Buildings and Grounds Committtees — the capital outlay request 
for the second year of the five-year capital outlay program. Also 
of interest, he said, was the recommendation regarding the renova- 
tion of 100 Arlington as a university center. He then called on 
the Chancellors for their comments. 

Chancellor Bromery said that the School of Education had UM/Amherst-- 
developed a field-based graduate program for the faculty and staff Chancellor's 
of the community colleges. The purpose of the program was to Remarks 
improve the instructional expertise of the faculties and the manage- 
ment skills of the administrators. The program was now operating! 
as a pilot project and 42 staff members from four community colleges 
were enrolled. There had been expressions of interest from many 



-3- 



4368 



Board 
10/5/77 



UM/Boston — 
Chancellor' s 
Remarks 



UM/Worcester- 
Comment by 
Mr. Campbell 



Resolution of 
Thanks to 
Ms. Blues tone 



Capital Outlay 
Request FY79 
(Doc. T78-019) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

others, as well as a request from staff members of the state 
colleges for a similar program. 

Chancellor Golino said that the Harbor Campus had held 
a very successful open house on Sunday, October 2. He estimated 
that over 8,000 people had attended. He expressed his gratitude 
to all who had helped stage the event, particularly to Joseph Ryan 
and Heinz Bondy for their organizational efforts. September en- 
rollment figures were now available, he continued. The head-count 
enrollment was 8,362; this represented 7,139 F.T.E. Part-time 
students numbered 1,576, a substantial increase over the previous 
year. The Chancellor said the University had made progress towarc 
the Trustee-mandated goal of 60 percent upper-division and 40 
percent lower-division students. In 1976 the proportions were 
respectively 44:56; in 1977 50:50. 

Mr. Campbell said that Chancellor Bulger had sent his 
apologies for not being able to attend the meeting. The Worcester 
campus was preparing for the dedication of the Medical Center on 
October 13, to be followed by an open house on October 14 and 15. 
Many distinguished guests were expected and a portrait of Dr. 
Soutter, first Chancellor of UM/Worcester , painted by former 
Trustee Knowles would be unveiled. 



The Chancellors' comments being concluded, Chairman 
Healey asked leave to depart from the agenda to announce that thi£ 
would be the last meeting that Mrs. Bluestone would attend as a 
representative. Trustee Breyer moved and it was seconded and 
unanimously 



RESOLVED : 



That the Board of Trustees extend to Joanne 
Bluestone its sincere thanks for her hard work 
and the serious manner in which she has approached 
the problems faced by the Board and for her 
very great help. 



The meeting then turned to the Agenda item Capital 
Outlay Request FY 1979 (Doc. T78-019) . Trustee Spiller said 
that the Buildings and Grounds and the Budget and Finance Committees 
had met in joint session to review and discuss the FY79 Capital 
Outlay request. He noted that the total request was $13,525,000- 
$7,350,000 for Amherst, $1,250,000 for Boston, and $4,925,000 for 
Worcester. After discussion the Committees had agreed that all 
items were urgent and necessary and it was jointly recommended 
that the Board approve the request. He reminded the Trustees that 
all of the items were included in the Five-year Capital Outlay 
request and had been fully discussed at previous meetings. Trustee 
Baker said that she wished to request that consultations with 
faculty and students be held before any renovations of the 
student lounge of Building 02 were undertaken. Trustee Spiller 
said this had been discussed at the joint meeting and it was unde):- 



-4- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



stood that such consultations would take place, 
discussion it was moved, seconded and 



Without further 



VOTED : To approve the FY 1979 Capital Outlay Budget 

Requests and submissions as set forth in Trustee 
Document T78-019. 

Another item discussed at the joint meeting, Trustee 
Spiller continued, was the renovation of 100 Arlington Street. 
The proposed renovation would provide space for the central 
office as well as the needs of the College of Public and 
Community Service. He also reported that arrangements were being 
made for the President's Office to continue to occupy space 
at One Washington Mall on a tenancy-at-will basis while 100 
Arlington was being renovated and he wished to inform the 
Board of that action. The Committees had decided to recommend 
that the Board approve sending a delegation to the Governor 
to expedite the work at 100 Arlington. Without discussion it 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To ask the Chairman to appoint a delegation 

from the Board to meet with the Governor, the 
Executive Offices, and the Legislative leadership 
to request and support immediate funding for 
the renovation of four floors at 100 Arlington 
Street and the relocation of the central 
administrative offices in accordance with the 
September 14 vote by the Board. 

The meeting then turned to the report of the Executive 
Committee. Chairman Healey noted that the matter of Honorary 
Degree Nominations — UM/ Amherst had been dealt with in Executive 
session. 

The meeting then dealt with the agenda item Extension 
of Review of Medical Center By-laws . Trustee Robertson said 
that the Hospital Management Board, at its most recent meeting, 
had unanimously agreed to ask the Board to approve a delay in 
submitting the revised By-laws of the Medical Center. He 
pointed out that the proposed vote stipulated a deadline of 
February, 1978; however, there was every likelihood that the 
document would be ready for Board action before that date. There 
was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To change the date for submission of 

revisions to the Medical Center By-laws 
to February, 1978. 

Chairman Healey said the next item, Delegation of 
Authority , was necessitated by the untimely death of Treasurer 



Johnson. Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 



-5- 



4369 



Board 
10/5/77 



Renovation 
of 100 Arling- 
ton Street 



Report of 
Executive 
Committee 



Extension o 
Review of 
Medical Cen 
By-laws 



ter 



Delegation of 
Authority, 
Treasurer' s 
Office 



Board 
10/5/77 



Report of 
Committee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 

UM/ Amherst — 

Approval of 

September 1977 

Graduation 

Lists 

Report of 

Presidential 

Search 

Committee 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : That, until further vote of the Board, 

Robert H. Brand, Associate Treasurer of the 
University, be authorized to act as Treasurer 
of the University, and to exercise any and all 
authority heretofore delegated to the Treasurer 
of the University; and further, that Ray E. 
Heiney, Jr., Assistant Treasurer, be authorized 
to act as Treasurer in the absence of the 
Associate Treasurer. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy. Trustee Troy said the Committee 
had dealt with a single item at its just completed meeting, 
September, 1977, Graduation Lists — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-020) . 
He moved, and it was seconded and 

VOTED : To approve and ratify the Preliminary Graduation 
Lists of September, 1977, UM/Amherst, certified 
by the recorder of that campus and contained in 
Doc. T78-020. 

The meeting then heard the reports of Special Committees 
Trustee Breyer spoke for the Presidential Search Committee, 
reporting that the Committee had now had its own staff 
and functioning office at 100 Arlington. He said that the re- 
quisite faculty and student committees had been, or were in the 
process of being, set up. The Search Committee was now receiving 
names of possible candidates — forty people had been nominated 
and ten had applied. The Committee had written to several uni- 
versity presidents and some had replied. Contacts with other 
universities, foundations and persons were continuing. He re- 
minded the meeting that the Committee wanted to hear the thoughts 
of the Trustees on the procedures of the Committee and the type 
of person best suited to head the university. Three Trustees 
had responded to date and he urged that other Trustees do likewise 

At the end of October, he continued, the Committee would 
visit each of the three campuses to learn the thoughts of faculty 
and students on the process and the person. On October 21, the 
Committee would hold its next meeting. Prior to that meeting 
the Committee would begin to focus on the problem of presidential 
criteria. He cautioned that this was a tricky problem because, 
while criteria were necessary and desirable, they could be so 
formulated as to eliminate candidates at an early stage of the 
process only to realize later that some of those eliminated 
were desirable candidates. There was evidence that some search 
committees at other universities had been disappointed at the 
small number of serious candidates that came forward. He said 
the University of Massachusetts Committee did not expect this 
particular problem to arise; however, he said he felt that the 
criteria should give the Search Committee maximum flexibility. 



' 



f 



-6- 



F 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

In its consideration of possible criteria, Trustee 
Breyer continued, the criteria used by Tufts in its most recent 
presidential search had been helpful, as had those suggested by 
the ad hoc Committee on The Process of Selecting a President. 
From these and other sources the Committee expected to present a 
document for consideration to the November meeting of the Board. 
Also, at the October 21 meeting the Committee would discuss the 
process of winnowing the list of candidates. Meanwhile solici- 
tation of candidates would continue. Trustee Breyer concluded by 
saying that if the Board disagreed with the process as described, 
this should be made clear; otherwise the Committee would continue 
on its present course. 

Trustee Burack said that in her letter to the Search 
Committee she had expressed her belief that a meeting of the 
full Board was absolutely necessary. The purpose of the meeting 
would be to discuss criteria and a job description, and some agree- 
ment on the kind of person being sought. She said she did not 
see how it was possible to judge the candidates before deciding 
on what type of person the Trustees really wanted. Unless a 
special meeting could be called, or a portion of the November 
meeting devoted to this matter, candidates on the short list 
would face a barrage of questions from the Board the answers 
to which the Search Committee should already have solicited. 
This could be an awkward and embarrassing development for all 
concerned. Chairman Healey asked if a formulation from the 
Search Committee addressing this matter would be acceptable as 
a discussion document. Trustee Burack said this would be 
acceptable. Chairman Healey said a special meeting would be 
considered. 

Trustee Kassler said he had written to the Search 
Committee concerning what he considered to be a clear direction 
given by the Board to the Committee as found in the minutes of 
the July 28 Board meeting: "the necessity of a job description 
was emphasized and the need for agreement of the Board members 
as to the type of person desired to fill the position." In his 
letter, he said, he had expressed his great concern that the pro- 
cess was sliding backwards. As Trustee Breyer had just indicated 
a job description and criteria would be formulated for discussion 
by the Board in November. 



Trustee Breyer interrupted to say that he had deliberate 
ly not said this. He had said that the Committee would try to 
get the characteristics of the person wanted; that is, what 
kind of president was being sought. He did not say that the 
Committee would try to write down the duties of the President of 
the University. The Committee, Trustee Breyer continued, did 
not believe that it should get into what would be a host of 
problems concerning the role of the presidency before starting 
the search. It was felt that there were many controversies 
surrounding the role of the President and to get involved in 
these would delay the search for a very long time. The Committee 
did not see that this was its chore and was operating with an 



4371 



Board 
10/5/77 



-7- 



4372 



Board 
10/5/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

idea of the President's office based on whatever documents were 
currently in force. Trustee Breyer concluded by stressing that 
if the Board did not agree with the Committee's interpretation 
of its role, the Board should direct the committee accordingly. 

Trustee Kassler asked leave of the Trustees to state 
what he believed the responsibilities of the Committee to be, 
this belief being based on the minutes he had just quoted. He 
said he had expressed his concerns to the Board earlier and to 
Trustee Breyer in a private conversation. Trustee Breyer had 
told him that his points were well taken and were being addressed 
by the Committee. Trustee Kassler said that Trustee Breyer ' s 
response to his letter led him to believe that the Committee did 
not share many of his basic concerns. First, it seemed to him mos 
inappropriate to call upon the Trustees for the names of candidate's 
when the full Board had yet to adopt a detailed description of 
the type of person being sought. He noted that the Trustees 
in the past had been presented with job descriptions tailored 
to the credentials of the individual being recommended for the 
job. He urged that this not happen in the selection of the 
President . 



At the July meeting, Trustee Kassler continued, the 
Trustees were told that the first job of the Search Committee 
would be to develop expanded guidelines detailing those qualities 
and characteristics which the Trustees wanted in a new President. 
He asked how it was possible to solicit names when the Trustees 
had yet to decide what qualities and characteristics the new 
president should possess. Trustee Kassler asked if urging the 
Trustees to submit any name was a realistic way to approach the 
search. He questioned if this was the way to keep the Board's 
pledge and responsibility to involve the faculty and students 
at every stage. He said it seemed to him that the Committee 
could not do any screening until told by the Trustees what the 
Trustees were looking for. It had been stated, he said, that 
given the diversity of the Board it would be hard to reach a 
consensus on guidelines. If, as it seemed was being suggested, 
it was thought that consensus would somehow develop through 
individual Trustees' communicating with the Search Committee, 
this was not the way to achieve any such consensus. By operating 
in this manner, he said, the Committee would be making value 
judgments about the importance of suggestions. This would entail 
the Committee's substituting its judgment for that of the Board. 
Obviously, it should be the Board that charts the course to be 
followed. All Trustees, he said, bore the same statutory re- 
sponsibilities, and the Board should not avoid controversy in an 
effort to achieve unanimity. 



Trustee Kassler said he was troubled by the statement 
that the Committtee was going to submit collated materials dealin 



-8- 



I 



» 



' 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

with criteria for the presidency from Tufts and other places 
at the November Board meeting, since ads appearing in various 
places specified a deadline of November 1, 1977 for the submission 
of nominations and applications for the post. Trustee Breyer said 
the ad should have read "preferably by November 1." Trustee 
Kassler said, with respect, that the ad should not even have said 
"preferably." At no point could the Search Committee set deadlines 
until such time as the Board established the guidelines. Trustee 
Kassler said he was not suggesting that all the governance docu- 
ments be gone through in order to redefine the Office of the 
President. He was suggesting, as he had stated previously, that 
he was disturbed that the Board was undertaking probably the most 
critical decision that it would make for many years without even 
deciding on what its direction was to be and what its charge to 
the Search Committee was. 

Trustee Breyer said he felt this was a matter where theie 
could be disagreement. He said he felt it was desirable at this 
time to begin to receive applications. Also, the Board had voted 
a general list of qualifications, contained in the report of the 
Committee on the Process of Selecting a President. The report 
did spell out what type of person was wanted. He said he agreed 
that the qualifications for the job needed to be spelled out 
further. Given the various documents of other search committees, 
such as those at Tufts and Lowell, this could be done. He said 
he believed there were sufficient guidelines at hand and that it 
would be a mistake to refuse to accept applications and nomina- 
tions in order to spell out in greater detail what type of 
person was being sought. Reasonable people could disagree on 
these matters he said, and the Board had the Committee's 
interpretation of its charge. 



£373 



Board 
10/5/77 



Trustee Kassler said that this was not what the Board 



had voted 



Trustee Breyer said that he believed that the Committee 
was doing that which the Board had bid it to do. If this was not 
so, the Committee should be so informed. 

Trustee Troy said that he agreed with Trustee Breyer' s 
interpretation. He thought, Trustee Troy continued, that there 
would be enough faith in the maturity of the Committee so that 
the members would not be asked to create something like a strait 
jacket and then to fit some candidate into it. There should be, 
he said, some flexibility in this pursuit. The Trustees did not 
come to the task of finding a new president with completely 
naked minds; a great deal was known about what kind of person 
should be selected. As for the job itself, it was known that 
it was a complicated and difficult one, that it bore immense 
responsibilities, and would require powers and services commensurate 
with these responsibilities. Trustee Troy said he did not 



-9- 



4374 



Board 
10/5/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

agree that the qualifications had to be spelt out in great 
detail — for example, to state that the candidate must be from a 
background of public higher education. Such a background would 
be desirable, he said, but should not be specified as a criterion 

Trustee Kassler said he had informed Trustee Breyer 
that it would be better and more appropriate for the Trustees 
to resolve their general differences and establish a general 
consensus before beginning to argue over individual candidates. 

Trustee Troy asked Trustee Kassler for a concrete 
illustration of the kind of thing he was talking about. Trustee 
Kassler cited the report of the Tufts search committee. Trustee 
Breyer said that some of the desiderata listed in that report 
were included in the report of the Process Committee. Trustee 
Kassler said he did not see them in the Process report. Trustee 
Breyer said that Trustee Morgenthau, chairman of the Process 
Committee, was a member of the Search Committee; and the report 
of the Process Committee was the basic document adopted by the 
Board at the July meeting. Trustee Morgenthau and the other 
members of the Search Committee agreed that what the Search 
Committee was doing was what the Process Committee wanted and 
what the Board had voted. 

Another issue, Trustee Breyer continued, was the point 
raised about the job description, which was a completely 
different issue. Trustee Breyer said the Committee recognized 
that there was a problem here. The problem was that there were 
many issues relating to the job description that the Board 
could discuss. If the Board did decide to discuss these issues 
at the outset, the search process would not begin for a long 
time. Moreover, part of the search process entailed consulting 
with faculty, students and other interested parties. In these 
meetings the groups were asked what kind of person they would 
like to see chosen and the reason for their preferences. Trustee 
Breyer said he thought it would be ill-advised and misleading to 
stop the discussion at that point and not ask if the faculty 
members or the students had a candidate in mind. If, in these 
discussions, matters relating to the job description came up, 
so be it. This was the approach the Committee had chosen. 



Trustee Crain said that he had heard continual reference 
to the apparent belief that those Trustees who favored a disciplined 
approach to the search process included some Trustees who wanted 
to redefine the role of the presidency. He said that he had 
talked with most members of the Board and he did not find this to 
be the case. Those Trustees he had talked with saw the role of 
the presidency as it has been. He said he agreed with Trustee 
Kassler that the Board must submit to the rigorous discipline 
required to ensure that there was good definition of the de- 
sired skills. He said his experience had shown that this made th£ 
beginnings of the search process very difficult, but the con- 



P 



\ 



-10- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

elusion was easier and the end result more satisfactory. 

Chairman Healey said that a middle ground must exist. 
It should be possible, without getting into minutiae of the job 
description, to outline certain general parts of the job. He 
said he felt that the Search Committee should be able to produce 
a general description of the job, which would include the 
essentials of the job — for example, the ability to work with 
the Legislature. The Board was seeking a chief executive 
officer for a multicampus university, and the kinds of powers 
and authorities of such a position would seem to be fairly 
obvious. 

Trustee Breyer said that insofar as Trustee Crain's tern 
"skill" encompassed this, he agreed. However, if the description 
were to become a separate document, he would be concerned. Even 
when there was general agreement, phrases tended to take on 
code meanings. This led to concerns about the possibly differing 
meanings a phrase could have in various segments of the University. 
He said he could be overstating his concern, but this stemmed 
from his hesitancy to write a detailed job description, not a 
hesitancy to describe the skills and qualifications. 

Chairman Healey said that the Committee should present 
some recommendations to the Board, even if such were phrased in 
very general terms. 

Trustee Breyer said he would attempt to draft such a 
document; he also asked for permission to prevail upon one of 
those Trustees who felt that a job description could be done 
successfully, to develop one. The Chairman said he saw no need 
for the Committee to stop the search process. Trustee Breyer 
agreed to send copies of all letters from Trustees to the Com- 
mittee to all other Trustees. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Ad Hoc 
Audit Committee. Trustee Dennis said the Committee had received 
a draft report, basically favorable, on the use of community 
activity funds from the auditing firm of Hurdman and Cranstoun. 
The report included a review of procedures and some recommenda- 
tions for changes, a report on disbursements for a three-year 
period, and documentation on approval of the funds. The report 
would be of use, he said, to the Search Committee in terms of 
completing the compensation package for the incoming president. 
The Committee would present the final report of the auditors, 
and its analysis of same, to the November Board meeting. 



Chairman Healey said there had been discussion of the 
need to examine the whole financial and control process of the 
University, and this matter had been given to the Budget and 
Finance Committee. He asked if Hurdman and Cranstoun would be 
likely prospects to participate in this examination. Trustee 



4375 



Board 
10/5/77 



Report of 

Ad Hoc 

Audit Committee 



-11- 



Board 
10/5/77 



Report of 
Interim 
President 
Committee 



New President, 
UM/Boston 
Alumni Ass'n 

Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee to 
Review matter 
of Chancellor 
Golino's 
appointment 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Dennis said he would like to discuss this matter with Trustee 
Crain before commenting. It was then noted that the proposal to 
amend the By-laws in order to make the Audit Committee a standing 
committee of the Board had been sent to the Trustees. It was 
agreed that a change in the wording of the amendment would be 
sent to the Trustees as soon as possible. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Interim 
President Committee. Trustee Robertson said the committee had 
met and discussed a number of procedural and other matters. It 
was agreed that the criteria for the job would stem from the tasks 
and activities faced by the University in the immediate future. 
It was intended to conduct a closed search which would be 
brief and rapid but thorough. The Committee felt that the 
individual chosen should be from within the University and, as 
the Board had mandated, the Interim President could not be a 
candidate for the Presidency. 

The Committee, Trustee Robertson continued, had 
attempted to identify the specific tasks, in addition to the day- 
to-day operation of the University, which would be the Interim 
President's lot. These included defense of the budget; relations 
with the Office of Educational Affairs, the Board of Higher 
Education, the Steering Committee for the Boston Public Schools, 
Tufts University regarding the Veterinary School, and the other 
land grant universities; collective bargaining; master planning; 
the move to 100 Arlington; and staff morale. The Committee was 
seeking a person who had a pan-university perspective and, 
prayerfully, a pan-university acceptance. 

The Committee already had a core list of candidates and 
was seeking yet others from any member of the University communi- 
ty. The deadline for receiving nominations was October 14. The 
Committee would meet on October 20 in order to narrow the list of 
nominees to those considered to be viable candidates. It was 
hoped that the Committee could at its meeting agree on a leading 
candidate. If this was not possible, the committee would meet 
again prior to the November meeting of the Board. Trustee 
Robertson said he had talked with Chairman Healey, and it had beer, 
agreed that a special meeting of the Board could be held on 
November 2, at which the Committee would submit its recommenda- 
tion. If the Board could not decide on an interim president at 
that time, Trustee Robertson said he would ask for a second 
special Board meeting to be held no later than mid-November. 

Chairman Healey then introduced and welcomed Albert 
Russell, new President of the UM/Boston Alumni Association. 

Turning to the final item of business, Chairman Healey 
said that he knew there was general interest in a matter which had 
been discussed at the executive session of the Board this 
morning with respect to the Chancellor of the Boston campus. 
It had been decided that an ad hoc committee of the Board would 



-12- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

be charged with the responsibility of reviewing this matter and 

reporting back to the Board, he said, with the Board to take 

final definitive action no later than at the meeting of the 
Board in November. 

There was no further business to come before the Board, 
and the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m. 






4377 



Board 
10/5/77 




ti^luL 



Dorothy Eichjel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board 
of Trustees 



-13- 



4378 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



• 



NOT USED 



I 



I 






ATTENDANCE 



. 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

November 1 & 2, 1977; 2:00 p.m. 

Faculty Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Worcester 

Trustees and Trustee Staff: Chairman Healey; President Wood; 



Trustees Baker, Batiste, Breyer , Burack, Crain, Dennis, Gordon, 
Kassler, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Robertson, Romer, Shearer, 
Spiller and Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Mr. 
Ames representing Trustee Dukakis; Mr. Schulman representing 
Trustee Fielding; Ms. Kaplan representing Trustee Okin; Mr. Colby 
representing Trustee Winthrop; Ms. Eichel, Assistant Secretary; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Trustee Absent : Trustees Clark and Morgenthau 



Office of the President : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Ms. Robinson, Vice President for Planning; Mr. Brand, 
Associate Treasurer; Ms. Hanson, Budget Director and Associate 
Vice President; Mr. Searson, University Counsel; Mr. Hester, 
Associate Vice President for Business Services; Mr. Cooley, 
Associate Vice President for Analytical Studies 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. McBee, Vice Chancellor for 



Administration and Finance; Mr. Woodbury, Acting Vice Chancellor 
for Student Affairs; Mr. Beatty, Director of the Office of Budget 
and Institutional Studies; Mr. DeNyse, Director of Personnel; 
Professors Brogan, Friedman and Mankin, Faculty Representatives 

UM/Boston: Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; Mr 



Tubbs , Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; Mr. Baxter, Vice 
Chancellor for Administration and Finance; Mr. James, Assistant 
Chancellor; Professor Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 



for Administration and Finance; Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for 
Health Affairs; Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting was called to order at 2:15 p.m. by Trustee 
Gordon, acting Chairman, who asked for a vote to enter executive 
session for the purpose of discussing collective bargaining and 
personnel matters. 

On motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To enter executive session. 

At 1:15 p.m. on November 2, it was 



VOTED: To conclude the executive session, 



437S 



Executive 
Session 



4380 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



Approval of 
Minutes of Prior 
Meeting 

Resignation of 

Chancellor 

Golino 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The meeting reconvened in open session at 2:25 p.m. on 
November 2. Chairman Healey asked if there were any amendments or 
changes to the minutes of the previous meeting. There were none, 
and it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the meeting of October 
5, 1977. 

Chairman Healey said the Board had discussed the matter 
of the Chancellor at Boston at the morning executive session. He 
had received a letter from Chancellor Golino. He read as follows 



November 2, 1977 



Dear Mr. Healey: 



I am submitting my resignation as 
Chancellor of the Boston Campus of the Univer- 
sity of Massachusetts to be effective as of 
January 31, 1978. I have come to this action 
reluctantly, but my decision is firm. 

When I made my statement to the Trustees at 
the June meeting of the Board, I said that I 
would continue as Chancellor as long as I felt 
I could make a contribution to the Campus. Over 
the last three months, it has become obvious 
to me that my sense of the educational mission of 
this Campus and that of the Board, have grown so 
different as to be incompatible. I, therefore, 
do not feel that I want to or should continue 
as the chief administrative and academic officer 
of the Campus. 

During the four and a half years I have been 
at UM/Boston, my primary goal has been to make this 
Campus a university campus. UM/Boston was created 
for that purpose — otherwise its existence along 
with Boston State College and other state colleges 
makes no sense. We are funded as a university, our 
salaries and teaching obligations are of university 
level, therefore, the education we provide should 
be of university level. While the College of Public 
and Community Service and the College of Profession- 
al Studies are essential components of our variety 
of offerings, the essence of our offerings is in 
the liberal arts. I have felt and continue to feel 
that there must be no compromise in the quality of 
education we offer. Most of our students come from 
Greater Boston and from low income families, but 
they are entitled to the best education of the same 
kind and orientation that is being offered at other 
universities in the Boston area. 



F 



P 



-2- 



P 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

In attempting to reach the above goal, many 
hard and difficult decisions have had to be made, 
but the Campus is today stronger academically, and 
is accepted in the community in which it functions. 

But much more needs to be done at the graduate 
level and in improving even further the academic ex- 
cellence of our programs. We have nothing to give 
our graduates but their education as reflected in 
the degree they earn — and if this does not represent 
the completion of a serious and high quality program, 
then we have cheated them. 

I wish to take this opportunity to thank all 
those who have helped me over the last four years 
in making UM/Boston a better place to study and to 
work, and look forward to my continued association 
with them as a Commonwealth Professor. 

Sincerely, 



Carlo L. Golino 
Chancellor 

At the request of Chairman Healey, Trustee Breyer read the follow 
ing statement: 

Chancellor Golino has submitted his resigna- 
tion as Chancellor of the Boston Campus effective 
January 31, 1978. The Board, in accepting that 
resignation, wishes to recognize, and to express 
the University's appreciation for, the Chancellor's 
many major achievements. With his guidance the 
University of Massachusetts at Boston successfully 
established itself in its new home at Columbia 
Point and forged constructive, harmonious ties 
with its neighbors. 

Under his leadership the campus has reached 
out to the community to help with its problems. 
Chancellor Golino brought about the unification 
of Colleges I and II, which strengthened the ad- 
ministration of the liberal arts, and he helped 
as well to establish important new academic ventures, 
such as the College of Professional Studies. The 
Board recognizes the value of the efforts Chancellor 
Golino has made to deal sympathetically with and to 
meet the needs and problems of students and the 
community the University serves. It hopes the 



-3- 



4381 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



4382 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



President' s 
Comments 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chancellor will continue to serve the University 
in other capacities in the future. 

Chairman Healey then asked the Trustees to accept the Chancellor's 
resignation. It was unanimously 

VOTED : To accept the resignation of Chancellor 

Golino as Chancellor of the Boston Campus 
effective January 31, 1978. In so doing 
the Board of Trustees wishes to recognize, and 
to express, the University's appreciation for 
his many major achievements. 

The meeting then turned to the Presidential Agenda. 
President Wood said he had several items to bring to the attentiot. 
of the Trustees. The Commissioner of the New England Board of 
Higher Education had recommended that a 25 percent surcharge be 
added to the tuition of the Regional Studies Program. In notify- 
ing the universities of this surcharge the Executive Committee of 
the NEBHE stated that they would assume the surcharge was accept- 
able unless they heard to the contrary by December 1, 1977. The 
Presidents of the Land Grant Universities had discussed this 
matter and had agreed that President Newman, of the University 
of Rhode Island, would inform the NEBHE that the assumption was 
unwarranted and that if the Universities did not meet the December 
1 deadline, no policy interpretation could be drawn. The 
President said his office would undertake an analysis of this 
matter for later presentation to the Board. 

In the matter of 100 Arlington, President Wood reminded 
the Trustees that at the last meeting they had approved sending 
a delegation to the executive and legislative leaders to assure 
support for a speedy completion of the renovation. Secretary 
Parks had asked that the professional staffs of the several 
Commonwealth departments involved and the University meet before 
the delegation called on the state leaders. The first such 
meeting had been held, attended by representatives of Administra- 
tion and Finance, the Bureau of Building Construction, the Office 
of Educational Affairs and the University. It had been agreed 
that the time schedule produced by the planning Office was 
reasonable and that the University staff was capable of proceeding 
outside the normal state construction routines. However, if a 
formal agreement could be reached with A&F and the BBC on thirteen 
special time-saving devices, the renovation would proceed under 
normal state routines. To date, the cooperation has been extra- 
ordinary. 



President Wood said there were matters concerning 
pending legislation applying the open meeting law to the Univer- 
sity which the Trustees might wish to discuss. Finally, he said 
the capital outlay request was going through the legislative 



-4- 



I 



I 



4383 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

process on schedule — a somewhat extraordinary event. 

President Wood then asked for comment from the Chan- 
cellors. Neither Chancellor Bromery, nor Provost Steamer, re- 
presenting Chancellor Golino, had any comments. Chancellor Bulger 
reminded the Trustees that Chairman Healey had corresponded with 
Senator Kelley, Chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, 
regarding language in the FY77 appropriation act. The language 
provided that for students admitted to the Medical School in the 
fall of 1977, "the Board of Trustees may institute learning con- 
tracts .. .which include provisions for 'payback' service to the 
commonwealth for a period after said students have fulfilled all 
internship and residency requirements." The FY78 act, by sub- 
stituting the word "shall" for "may," had changed that which was 
permissive to that which was prescriptive. This had great im- 
plications for the Medical School. Chancellor Bulger said he was 
discussing this matter with the faculty and the students in order 
to develop possible options. These would be forwarded to the 
President and then to the Board. 

Trustee Breyer said he felt the law now being considered 
by the Legislature, which would make the University subject to 
the open meeting law, should be discussed. Passage of the law 
would mean that the Trustees could no longer discuss honorary de- 
grees, tenure cases, or personal property transactions and con- 
tracts in executive session. While there could be honest dis- 
agreement on this, his own feeling was that these were matters 
that should be discussed in closed sessions because of the need 
for frank and open discussion. He said the Board should adopt 
a position on this matter. Trustee Troy said he supported Trustee 
Breyer 's position on the need for executive sessions. 

President Wood said he had brought this matter up so tha 
the Board could express its position on the matter and the Univer- 
sity could convey its opinion of the proposed law to the Legisla- 
ture. While the Board, in effect, had taken a position previously 
by adopting a by-law regarding executive sessions at the February 
2, 1977 meeting, after having received an opinion from the 
Attorney General, the composition of the Board had changed sub- 
stantially, he said, and it was appropriate to determine if 
the February, 1977 position was to be defended. 



Professor Brogan said his experience had been that 
secrecy in discussing tenure cases was often not to the advantage 
of the person under consideration. While there were times it 
would be to the person's advantage, this was not a general rule. 
If the Board wished to take a position for secrecy, it should be 
for other reasons. He said the Board should realize there was 
considerable sentiment among the faculty that secrecy in tenure 
decisions had often worked to the candidate's disadvantage. Trustee 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



UM/Worcester- 
Chancellor 's 
Comments 



Open Meeting 
Law 



-5- 



4364 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Troy said he did not think the word "secrecy" covered this matter, 
The intent was to promote frank and open discussion among those 
who had to make the hard decisions. He reminded the Board that 
tenure cases sometimes evolved into civil suits. Chancellor 
Bromery said he disagreed with Professor Brogan on the matter of 
faculty sentiment in this regard. There seemed to be two camps — 
those who had tenure and wanted open discussion, and those who 
were candidates for tenure and wanted closed sessions. 

Trustee Burack said the real issue was that the Board, 
like other boards responsible for public education, should obey 
the law. She had voted against the executive session by-law when 
it was proposed and her position had not changed. Other boards, 
she said, dealt with similar matters and managed to operate under 
the open meeting law; and if the law was defective, the University 
should seek legislative relief. Chairman Healey asked Counsel to 
outline the essential differences between the proposed law and 
the existing rules which the Trustees had adopted and to describe 
the practices of other universities. 

Counsel Searson said that the differences were those 
which Trustee Breyer had mentioned, namely honorary degrees, 
tenure cases, and personal property, as well as matters involving 
the professional competence and the hiring or promotion of per- 
sonnel. 

As to the practices of other universities, Counsel 
Searson continued, the Attorney General had opined that the 
University of Massachusetts, by virtue of its own rule-making 
authority, was exempt from the open meeting law. Presumably, this 
ruling applied to the four boards of the state's other public 
higher education institutions, whether they chose to follow it 
or not. He said he knew that one board did not follow the ruling 
He did not know what the other three did. 



Chairman Healey said the proposed law, in effect, changed 
the Board position of February, 1977. The question now to be 
decided was if the Board should take a position of supporting, 
opposing, or amending the proposed law. On being told that the 
law was directed specifically at the University, Trustee Breyer 
said it would be perfectly reasonable for the University to go 
to the Legislature about the provisions of the law. For example, 
the University could state its belief that it should be allowed 
to discuss honorary degrees and personal property matters in 
closed meetings. He said he thought there was general agreement 
among the Trustees about the appropriateness of this practice. 
There did not seem to be general agreement on the appropriateness 
of discussing tenure cases in closed sessions, he said, but he 
felt such discussions should be held in executive session in 
order to ensure frank and open discussion. 

Trustee Kassler said tenure cases generally came down 
to two decisions — one regarding the professional competence of 
the individual, the other regarding the individual's reputation 



I 



l 



-6- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

and character. In his experience, he said, it was not unusual to 
discuss an individual's reputation and character in closed 
session and the individual's professional competence in an open 
meeting. Trustee Kassler then proposed that Chairman Healey 
convey to the Senate President the request of the Trustees that 
the proposed law be amended so as to enable the Trustees to 
enter executive session in order to discuss honorary degrees and 
to consider personal property transactions, as well as those items 
now included in the open meeting law. He said he believed the 
University should operate under the open meeting law, even if it 
needs to be modified. Professor Brogan said that the governance 
documents currently in force stated that professional competence 
was the only consideration in awarding tenure. If, as Trustee 
Kassler seemed to have said, faculty were to be judged on other 
considerations (for example, personality other than as it impacted 
on professional competence), faculty should be warned. 

Trustee Spiller said that matters other than tenure had 
to be considered, matters that were of equal importance. For 
example, whether a presidential search committee could operate 
under a modified rule such as proposed by Trustee Kassler. He 
said he did not see how a search committee charged with determin- 
ing the competency of one hundred candidates could do so at open 
meetings. Ms. Kaplan said that not only would discussions of 
competency be hampered, interviews with the candidates would be 
affected. Counsel Searson said that in the discussions prior to 
the approval of the executive session by-law, he had pointed out 
that there had been a great increase in federal litigation stemming 
from discussing professional competence in public. If one were to 
make a statement in public regarding an individual's professional 
competence and the statement, regardless of its provable truth or 
accuracy, tended to bring the individual into public disrepute, 
the individual would have grounds for a hearing on a question of 
violation of federal civil rights. Trustee Kassler said that it 
might be difficult to conduct certain meetings in public, but that 
it would not be impossible. Questions about professional 
competence, he noted, were open questions. Further, the oft-stated 
charge that open meetings inhibited discussion had not been borne 
out in his experience. Trustee Breyer said that in drafting the 
by-law on executive sessions he had consulted federal law as 
well as laws of several states. The laws made provision for 
executive sessions when discussing the hiring of certain executivejs 
To his knowledge, the open meeting law was unique in not making 
such provision. 

Trustee Burack said that the intent of the proposed law 
was to bring the University into line with the current open 
meeting law. She suggested that the University, in approaching 
the Legislature, seek to have the law and any amendments thereto 
apply to all institutions of higher education, rather than just 
to the University of Massachusetts. Professor Smith, noting 



4385 



-7- 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



Resolution of 
Thanks and 
Appreciation 
to Trustee 
Rowland 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

that the Board had just completed executive sessions with regard 
to senior officials, asked if the discussions or the results there- 
of would have been different if the meetings had been in open 
session. Chairman Healey said that in general, and without 
regard to the just completed meetings, when meeting in open session 
the Trustees would be very cautious in characterizing the per- 
formance of an individual. He stressed that the use of executive 
sessions was discretionary, that the guidelines and mechanics 
for entering executive session were spelled out and were adhered 
to, and that the Board had used this method of operating sparingly 

Trustee Breyer said he supported Trustee Burack's pro- 
posal, that is, that the Legislature be informed of the concerns 
of the Board regarding certain aspects of the open meeting law, 
and that any amendment or revision of the law apply to all in- 
stitutions of public higher education. Without further discussion 
it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : That the Chairman convey to the President of 
the Senate the concerns of the Trustees with 
regard to those provisions of the Open Meeting 
Law that are not entirely appropriate for the 
regulation of meetings of governing boards of 
institutions of higher education, and the 
belief of the Trustees that any statutory 
determination as to the applicability of the 
Open Meeting Law to public higher education 
ought to apply uniformly to all segments and 
institutions, not solely to the University of 
Massachusetts . 

Chairman Healey then recognized Trustee Spiller. Trustee 
Spiller said he wished to offer a resolution of appreciation to 
Trustee Rowland. He noted that Trustee Rowland had served for 
twelve years. This had been a long, arduous and sometimes 
frustrating commitment. He then offered the following: 



RESOLVED ; When Carolyn Rowland joined the Board of Trustees 
in March, 1965, there was no Medical School and 
no Boston campus. She participated in some of 
this Board's most momentous decisions, both in a 
period of rapid growth and in a period when we 
recognized the limits of growth. Few Trustees 
have had a more constructive influence on more 
areas of University life than she. 

During her twelve years on the Board, she served 
on five standing Committees: Executive, Student 
Activities, Faculty and Educational Policy, 
Budget and Finance, and Long-Range Planning. 



I 



I 



-8- 



I 



* 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

She was Chairman of the Committee on Student 
Activities during a period of substantial change 
in the character and concerns of the University's 
students. The issues were frequently complex and 
controversial — ranging from dormitory rules to ROTC— 
but there was never doubt about Carolyn Rowland's 
deep interest in student life and well being. 

As the Board came to understand the need for 
careful and continuous review of the University's 
plans for its future, Carolyn Rowland helped to 
create a Committee on Long-Range planning. As 
Chairman, she guided the Committee as it established 
a process for planning and reviewed the new 
realities of the late 1970 's. 

Her Trusteeship also reflected Carolyn Rowland's 
wide-ranging concern for the fine arts. Through 
her leadership, the Trustees established a 
distinguished Advisory Council on the Fine Arts, 
whose review of the University's programs in all 
of the arts will guide us for many years to come. 
She was responsible for the Board's decisions to 
award honorary degrees to a number of the nation '£ 
most outstanding artists. 

Carolyn Rowland is a beautiful person, a private 
person who has never sought individual credit or 
recognition for her dedicated service to the 
University. All of us who have worked with her 
over the years know how much we owe her and how 
much we will miss her. 

The resolution was unanimously adopted. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Amendment 
to Trustee By-laws. Trustee Dennis said that the proposed amend- 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



ment would create a new standing committee — the Committee on 
Audits. Such a committee was standard in industry and becoming th 
practice in universities. Without further discussion it was moved 
and seconded and 

VOTED : To amend the By-laws by deleting the period at 
the end of Article III, Section 1 and inserting 
in place thereof the following: . . . ; (8) Committee 
on Audits. 

To further amend the By-laws by inserting at the 
end of Article III the following: 

SECTION 14. THE COMMITTEE ON AUDITS. The 



Amendment to 
Trustee By-laws 
(Doc. T76-051, 
B77) 



-9- 



4388 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



Report on 
Committee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 

UM/Amherst — 
Establishment 
of Undergradu- 
ate Major in 
Portuguese 
Doc. T78-011A) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Committee on Audits shall have the following powers 
and duties: 

(a) To approve the scope of audits as recom- 
mended by the President or the Chancellors, 
and to initiate audits as the Committee may 
determine. 

(b) To approve the selection of audit firms 
after consultation with the President or 
the Chancellors. 

(c) To receive and review audit reports and 
administrative responses on behalf of the 
Board of Trustees. 

(d) To receive and review the annual reports 
of the State Auditor and administrative 
responses to issues raised by the Manage- 
ment Bureau. 

(e) To review annually the overall scope of 
audit coverage for all funds of the University 

(f) To review the annual report on internal 
audit activities. 

(g) To report annually to the Board of Trustees 
on audit activities, findings, recommenda- 
tions, and administrative responses, and at 
such other times as the committee may determine 

Notwithstanding the provision of Article III, Section 3, the Com- 
mittee on Audits shall have no fewer than three, nor more than 
six members . 



The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy. Trustee Troy said the Committee 
had met October 19, 1977 and had several recommendations to make 
to the Board , the first having to do with the Establishment of 
an Undergraduate Major in Portuguese — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-011A) . 



I 



I 



He noted that courses in Portuguese language and literature had 
been offered on the campus over the years. Approval of the re- 
commendation would not entail any serious additional demand on 
resources. All faculty in the Department of Spanish and Portu- 
guese could and did teach Portuguese; library resources in the 
field at Amherst were more than adequate and could be supplemented 
by other libraries in the Five College Consortium. There was 
demand for the program particularly by students interested in 
bilingual programs. Without discussion it was moved and seconded 
and 



■10- 



I 



tional Leadership, the program had undergone several changes in 
title, as well as in departmental affiliation. The aim of the new 
program was to introduce a strong management dimension, so that 
students would have the breadth of training necessary to become 
supervisors and administrators rather than mere activity leaders. 
He noted that the Committee had discussed the proposal at some 
length and in spite of some misgivings about the intellectual 
content of the program had decided to concur with the Academic 
Matters Council, the Chancellor, the Provost and the President 
in recommending approval of the program. There was no discussion, 
and it was moved and seconded and 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : To approve the establishment of an undergraduate 
major in Portuguese at the University of Mass- 
achusetts at Amherst as described in Doc. T78-011A. 

The Committee, Trustee Troy continued, then had heard a j 
proposal for the Establishment of a Program in Leisure Studies and; 



Resources — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-022) . Originally called Recrea- 



VOTED 



To approve the termination of the programs in Park 
Administration and Leisure Studies and Services 
at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst as 
described in Doc. T78-022. 



and further, 



VOTED : To approve the establishment of an under- 
graduate major in Leisure Studies and Resources 
at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 

Trustee Burack asked that the record show that the Com- 
mittee had been assured that faculty will include relevant 
matters from the social and physical sciences in the program so 
that this would not be too narrow an area of specialization. 

The Committee then dealt with a proposal for the 
Establishment of the Center for Materials Research in Archaeology 



and Ethnology at Boston (Doc. T78-021) . The Center was a con- 



sortium of Boston area institutions and was interdisciplinary as 
well as interinstitutional. Faculty from the eight institutions 
involved in the Center had held a series of seminars devoted to 
principal categories of materials encountered in the study of 
archaeology, art history, anthropology and related disciplines. 
At present the Center was funded by a $350,000 grant from the 
National Endowment for the Humanities. $200,000 of this grant 
would be used to establish a central teaching laboratory at M.I.T. 
this would be used by faculty and students of the participating 
institutions. Research in this subject held great promise, and 
had opened up new areas of study in the various disciplines. 
The Center offered many advantages to faculty and students, at 
little or no cost. It was then moved and seconded and 



VOTED 



To authorize the President to sign the Memorandum 



-11- 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



UM/Amherst — 
Establishment 
of Undergrad- 
uate Major in 
Leisure Studies 
and Resources 



UM/Amherst — 
Termination of 
Programs in 
Park Adminis- 
tration and 
Leisure Studies 
and Services 
(Doc. T78-022) 



UM/Boston — 
Establishment of 
Center for 
Materials Re- 
search in 
Archaeology and 
Ethnology 
(Doc. T78-021) 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
the Appoint- 
men t of C . L . 
Dym as Pro- 
fessor of Civil 
Engineering 
with Tenure 
(Doc. T78-023) 

Concurrence in 
the Appoint- 
ment of Martha 
Paley 

Francescato as 
Professor of 
Spanish and 
Portuguese 
with Tenure 
(Doc. T78-024) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

of Agreement among Member Institutions establishing 
the Center for Materials Research in Archeology 
and Ethnology (Doc. T78-021) and to appoint 
the representatives to the Administrative Com- 
mittee and the Program Committee. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee had also dealt with 
icertain personnel matters at Amherst. In one, the Committee had 
agreed to recommend concurrence in the Appointment of Clive L . 
Dym as Professor of Civil Engineering with Tenure (Doc. T78-023) , 



I 



UM/Boston — 

September, 1977 

Graduation 

List 

(Doc. T78-025) 



Tenure Appeals 



The Department, the School of Engineering and the campus adminis- 
tration had all agreed on the necessity to bring in a person from 
outside the campus in order to ensure strong leadership in the 
Department. 

The Committee had also decided to recommend concurrence 
in the Appointment of Martha Paley Francescato as Professor of 
Spanish and Portuguese with Tenure (Doc. T78-024) . It was then 



moved and seconded and 



VOTED 



To concur in the appointment by the President of 
Clive L. Dym as Professor of Civil Engineering 
with tenure at the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst as set forth in Doc. T78-023. 



and further 



VOTED : To concur in the appointment by the President 
of Martha Paley Francescato as Professor of 
Spanish and Portuguese with tenure at the University 
of Massachusetts at Amherst as set forth in 
Doc. T78-024. 

Trustee Burack voted "no" to both appointments, citing 
her opposition to initial appointments with tenure. President 
Wood asked that his usual demurral to Trustee Burack' s views on 
the basis of national educational philosophy be recorded. 

The final recommendation of the Committee, Trustee Troy 
continued, was to approve the September 1977 Graduation List — 
UM/Boston (Doc. T78-025) . Without discussion, it was moved and 
seconded and 

VOTED : To approve and ratify the September, 1977 

Graduation List — UM/Boston, as set forth in 
Doc. T78-025. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee had also discussed two 
tenure appeals. In one case the President had been asked to 
direct Chancellor Golino to institute a de novo review, in the 
other the President had been asked to reconsider his previous 
decision on the basis of new evidence. 



I 



I 



-12- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The meeting then turned to the report of the Committee 
on Buildings and Grounds. Trustee Spiller said the Committee, 
faced once again with a revision of the Motor Vehicle Rules and 
Regulations — UM/Amherst (Doc. T75-155) , had asked if this type of 
administrative function was one of the delegable powers of the 
Board. It was learned that the Board could not delegate the 
approval of rules and regulations. It was then moved and 
seconded and 

VOTED : To amend the Motor Vehicle Rules and Regulations 
for the Amherst campus (Doc. T75-155) as follows: 

(1) By inserting after Section 9 of Article I 
the following new section: 

Section 9A — PARKING GARAGE — Any structure or 
facility designed and constructed either in 
whole or in part for the purpose of providing 
space for the parking of vehicles therein. 
Specific areas within such a facility may be 
designated and treated as if it were a parking 
lot, to which all relevant regulations 
contained herein shall apply. 

(2) By inserting after the words "between 
6 P.M. and 7 A.M." in Article I, 
Section 18 the following: except Parking 
lot #21 between 6 P.M. and 4 A.M. 

(3) By striking from Section 2, Group C 
of Article VIII, the figure "$2.00" and 
inserting in place thereof the following: 
$5.00. 

(4) By striking paragraph (A) of Section 3 
of Article IX and inserting in place 
thereof the following: 

(A) All appeals made to the Appeals 

Board must be submitted in writing to 
the Department of Public Safety within 
seven (7) calendar days from the date 
of receiving the parking violation 
notice. Forms on which appeals are to 
be submitted may be obtained from the 
Department of Public Safety. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Land 
Purchase by Outing Club — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-026) . Trustee 



Spiller said the Committee had been given a delightful presenta- 
tion by members of the Club. Trustee Batiste, noting that they 
were present, introduced Professor Stengle, Faculty Advisor, and 
Mr. Bonacker and Ms. Davis. Without further discussion it was 
moved, seconded and 



4391 



Board 
11/1&2/77 

Report of 
Committee on 
Building and 
Grounds 
UM/Amherst — 
Revision to 
Motor Vehicles 
Rules and 
Regulations 
(Doc. T75-155) 



-13- 



UM/Amherst — 
Land Purchase 
by Outing Club 
(Doc. T78-026) 




Board 
11/1&2/77 



'-i — = 



Report of 
Committee 
on Budget 
Finance 



and 



Title XX 
Agreement 
(Doc. T78-028) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : To authorize and empower Associate Treasurer 

Robert H. Brand to enter into negotiations for 
and in behalf of the University to purchase two 
parcels of land described as follows : 

(1) Property of C. Kenneth Miller, Roger J. 
Fabian and Charles W. Ginste located on the 
westerly side of Mt. Agassiz Road and contain- 
ing 3.2 acres, more or less; 

(2) Property of C. Kenneth Miller located on the 
westerly side of Mt. Agassiz Road, and con- 
taining 6.3 acres, more or less. 

(3) That Associate Treasurer Brand be further 
authorized and empowered upon completion of 
said negotiations satisfactory to him, to 
execute all agreements necessary for the 
University to acquire said property. 

(4) Further, to authorize the Associate Treasurer 
to execute any and all instruments necessary 
to consummate the purchase of said parcel in 
the name of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 
for the use of the Trustees of the University 
of Massachusetts; provided, that the payment 
for such purchase shall be made from funds 
made available for the purpose from student 
activities accounts, or from funds contributed 
for the purpose to the University. 

(5) Further, to authorize the Associate Treasurer, 
upon approval of the General Counsel, to retain 
the services of legal counsel in New Hampshire 
for the sole purpose of title examination, the 
drafting of necessary agreements and other 
matters incidental to the purchase of said 
land. 

Trustee Spiller said that as the President had already 
discussed the Program for 100 Arlington, his report was complete. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Budget and Finance. Trustee Crain said the Committee hoped to 
present a report on affirmative action in purchasing to the next 
meeting of the Board. At its morning meeting the Committee had 
dealt with the Title XX Agreement . This was a complex issue 
but one that was very promising. Because of its complexities 
and because of the Committee's concern about the University's 
responsibilities and liabilities, clarification was being sought 
on several issues of what controls and what audit trails would be 
provided. Because there were time constraints, the Committee 
was asking the Board for something unusual — that is, a delegation 



I 



I 



! 



-14- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

of authority from the Board in anticipation of the clarifications 
expected at the November 16, 1977 meeting of the Committee. 
After a brief discussion of the wording of the motion it was 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : Subject to the further review and approval by the 
Committee on Budget and Finance, to authorize the 
President on behalf of the University of Mass- 
achusetts to enter into an agreement for FY 1978 
with the Secretary of the Executive Office of Human 
Services and the Commissioner of the Department of 
Public Welfare for the delivery of educational and 
training programs pursuant to Title XX of the 
Social Security Act, as more fully described in 
T78-028. 

The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Student Affairs. Trustee Shearer said the Committee had met on 
October 27 and had continued its efforts to gather information 
about student services at each of the campuses. The meeting 
heard reports on child care, allocation of resources to student 
affairs, and tuition waivers. The Committee hoped to bring a 
recommendation on the last to the next Board meeting. Trustee 
Shearer noted that the discussion had been a good one, as was the 
case at most of the Committee's meetings, and she urged other 
Trustees to attend future meetings. 

The Trustees then heard the report of the Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee on the Interim President. Trustee Robertson said the Com- 
mittee had met on October 20, with Committee members Batiste, 
Burack, Marks and Robertson present. Committee member Shearer 
had been informed of the Committee's recommendations after the 
meeting and had concurred with them. The Committee had considered 
15 names. The criteria used to judge the candidates were: ad- 
ministrative ability, acceptability to the various segments of 
the University, ability to serve as a unifying force, knowledge 
of the University, ability to work with groups outside the Univer- 
sity, including the state government, and knowledge of the budget- 
ing process. Additionally, the Committee had considered the impacjt 
the appointment would have on the operations of the segment of 
the University from whence the nominee came. All candidates 
considered had positive qualifications; however, the Committee 
had reached a unanimous decision as to the top three candidates. 
At the morning meeting the Board had considered the recommenda- 
tions of the Committee and had selected an Interim President. 

Chairman Healey said the Board had chosen Franklin 
Patterson to serve as Interim President effective on resignation 
of President Wood, January 1, 1978, until a permanent president 
was appointed. Professor Patterson had served as Frank L. Boyden 
University Professor at the University, and as Secretary of the 
University in 1973-74; he was the founding President of Hampshire 
College and had served as Chairman of the Board of the College; 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



Report of 
Committee on 
Student 
Affairs 



-15- 



Report of 
Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee on the 
Interim 
President 



4394 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



Report of 
Presidential 
Search 
Committee 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

he had been Director of the Lincoln Filene Center for Citizenship 
and Public Affairs and Professor of Government and Education at 
Tufts; additionally, he had held numerous other offices in 
educational and public interest groups and was an author of books 
dealing with government, political action and curriculum reform. 
Professor Patterson's salary would be $48,000 per year; he would 
have the use of a university car and of the President's dis- 
cretionary fund. 

Trustee Robertson said he would like to note that the 
Committee had considered the impact of this appointment on various 
constituencies — one, the staff of the President's Office, he 
particularly wished to address.- The University would need the 
support of that excellent staff, especially in the transitional 
period ahead. In turn the staff would need the support of Pro- 
fessor Patterson, and it was his belief that this support would 
be forthcoming. Both the staff and the Interim President would 
need the strong support of the Trustees. He said he wished to 
express his personal support for the staff and his appreciation 
for their dedication and hard work. Trustee Troy said he agreed 
with this statement. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Presidential 
Search Committee. Trustee Breyer said the Committee had received 
over 150 names and would continue to accept additional ones. 
The process of acknowledging all suggestions /applications and the 
soliciting of expressions of interest was now underway. The 
Committee expected to begin winnowing in December. 

As part of the search process and in an effort to 
establish criteria and to identify the problems the new President 
would face, the Committee had met with faculty, students and past 
and present administrators at Amherst. The Committee went to 
the campus and spent the day, discussing such matters with the 
Student Consultative Committee, the Faculty Consultative Com- 
mittee, and the Senate Rules Committee. Also, time had been set 
aside to allow anyone who wished to speak with the Committee to 
do so. Many people had taken advantage of this opportunity, and 
the Committee had learned a great deal. 

The Committee, Trustee Breyer continued, tried to get 
at the problem of criteria by asking people to discuss those 
things about the University that bothered them. This was felt 
to be a more productive exercise than asking people to list 
desirable qualities. The Committee was grateful to those at 
Amherst who had participated in the discussions. The Committee 
intended to visit the Boston Campus next, then Worcester. 



The Committee, in its internal discussions, was dealing 
with the matter of criteria. Criteria, in terms of obvious 
categories, had been listed — strong commitment to public educatioii; 
understanding of the academic community; ability to deal with an 
extraordinarily complex administrative situation; ability to deal 
with the executive and legislative branches of government; and 



-16- 



» 



l 



I 



"-439S 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

ability to present the face of the university to the public and 
to engender support for the University. The listing of the 
obvious categories, Trustee Breyer continued, did not reveal the 
true content of the criteria. This would emerge from the con- 
tinuing discussion with all interested parties. The formulation 
of the criteria was now fairly well along the road and could con- 
tinue as the Committee began to consider particular individuals. 

During December and January the Committee would, as 
stated, begin the winnowing process and would conduct pre- 
liminary interviews with likely candidates. Interviews of a 
more intensive character would then be held. At present the 
Committee hoped to come to the Board with recommendations at the 
March or April meeting. Trustee Breyer warned that this 
schedule was subject to change. 

The alumni, he continued, had asked that a committee 
of alumni from all three campuses be allowed to review the 
candidates on the final list. Chairman Healey asked if there 
were any objections to granting this request. There were none. 

Trustee Breyer concluded his remarks by saying that he 
would have to withdraw his promise of forwarding copies of letters 
from Trustees to each of the other Trustees. The Committee staff 
was not large enough to accomplish this. In response to Trustee 
Burack's question, Chairman Healey said the salary and perquisites 
of the incoming president could be discussed at the next meeting. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Ad Hoc Committ* 
on Labor Relations . Trustee Crain said the Committee had met witi 
Gary Wulf, chief negotiator for the University, and Walter Powell 
consultant to the Board. These contacts would continue in order 
to insure clear communication by the Board of the parameters 
within which the bargaining committee was to operate, and to keep 
the Board informed of significant developments. The meeting had 
been long and had been valuable to all participants. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Ad Hoc Committ 
on Audits. Trustee Dennis said the Trustees had received copies 
of the final version of the report on discretionary funds used 
by senior officials of the University. He suggested that the 
Trustees review the report and that it be discussed at a later 
meeting. He said that if any Trustees had questio about the 
report, they should contact him. 

There was no report from the Delegate to the Board of 
Higher Education since the post was vacant, and Chairman Healey 
said he was reviewing the present committee assignments and would 
try to remedy the BHE situation within the week. Trustee Crain 
said the by-law mandating six members on each standing committee 
should be reexamined. The Chairman agreed. 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



-17- 



Report of Ad 
Hoc Committee 
on Labor 
Relations 



e Report of 
Ad Hoc 

Committee on 
Audits 



J 



4336 



Board 
11/1&2/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey said there was one final item to be 
dealt with as a result of Chancellor Golino's resignation. After 
a brief discussion, it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the Chairman to establish an ad 
hoc committee to consider and advise the 
Board on procedures and actions necessitated 
by the resignation of Chancellor Golino. The 
consideration to include the advisability of 
appointing an interim Chancellor. 

Chairman Healey said that the Board, now completing the better 
part of two days devoted to University business, had once again 
demonstrated to him and to the University that it was serious in 
its attitude to the problems and aspirations of the University and 
was the hardest working, unpaid Board he had ever seen. 

There was no further business to come before the Board, 
and the meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. 



f 




Dorothy Eiibhel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



l 



I 



-18- 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

December 7, 1977; 2:00 p.m. 
Chancellor's Conference Room 
Harbor Campus 
University of Massachusetts/Boston 

Trustees and Trustee Staff: Chairman Healey; President Wood; 



Interim President Designate Patterson; Trustees Baker, Batiste, 
Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Gordon, Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, 
McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, Robertson, Romer, Spiller, Troy and 
Winthrop ; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Mr. Parks re- 
presenting Trustee Dukakis; Mr. Schulman, representing Trustee 
Fielding; Ms. Kaplan representing Trustee Okin; Mr. Brand, Acting 
Treasurer; Ms. Eichel, Assistant Secretary; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent: Trustee Shearer 



Office of the President: Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 



Affairs; Ms. Robinson, Vice President for Planning; Father Walsh, 
Academic Advisor to the President; Mr. Cooley, Associate Vice 
President for Analytical Studies; Ms. Hanson, Budget Director and 
Associate Vice President; Mr. Hester, Associate Vice President for 
Business Services; Ms. Rosen, Associate Counsel; Ms. Simmons, Ms. 
Veith, Ms. Weiner, Assistant Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Woodbury, Acting Vice 



Chancellor for Student Affairs; Mr. Beatty, Director, Office of 
Budgeting and Institutional Studies; Professor Brogan, Faculty 
Representative 

JM/Boston: Chancellor Golino; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for 



Academic Affairs; Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; 
Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance; Pro- 
fessor Martin, Faculty Representative 

JM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 

Feinblatt, Associate Dean and 
Faculty Representati 



for Administration and Finance; Mr. 

Director of Student Affairs; Professor Smith, 

Guests : Messrs. Barrus and Colby, Food and Agriculture Department 



ve 



yls . Pinck, Executive Office of Educational Affairs 

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 p.m. Chairman 
Healey asked if there were any additions or changes to the minutes 
of the last meeting. There were none and it was moved and seconded 
and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the meeting of November 
2, 1977. 

Chairman Healey then welcomed Trustee Krumsiek to his 



4397 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



43S8 



Board 
12/7/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Introduction of jfirst meeting as a member of the Board, noting that his presence 



New Trustee, 
James B. 
Krumsiek 

Introduction of 
Assistant 
Commissioner 
of Food and 
Agriculture 



Resolution in 
memory of late 
Trustee Clark 



considerably strengthened western representation on the Board. 
He said Trustee Krumsiek had agreed to serve on the Ad Hoc 
Labor Relations Committee. 

The Chairman then called on Trustee Winthrop. Trustee 
Winthrop said he wished to introduce John D. Barrus , newly 
appointed Assistant Commissioner of Food and Agriculture, who 
would replace Mr. Colby as his representative to the Board. 
Trustee Winthrop said he also wanted to thank Mr. Colby for the 
extremely conscientious job he had done. Trustee Burack said she 
too wished to thank Mr. Colby for his very efficient labors. 
Chairman Healey said it should be noted that when tempers flared 
and positions were taken, Mr. Colby was the only calming influence 
Mr. Colby thanked everyone for their generous remarks. He was 
given a standing ovation. 

Chairman Healey then spoke of the recent death of 
Trustee Clark. He said that no single person was more responsible 
for bringing UM/Boston to Columbia Point and for the development 
of the campus. For the purpose of recognizing her contribution 
to the University he called on Mr. Callahan. 

Mr. Callahan moved the following: 

RESOLVED : Catherine Forbes Clark joined the Board of 
Trustees in April, 1974, just three months 
after students and faculty had moved to the 
new Harbor Campus. As a community leader, 
she had already devoted her considerable 
energies to assuring that the University and 
the Dorchester community would be good 
neighbors; as a Trustee, she insisted, with 
eloquence and determination, that the 
University keep its commitments. 

When this Board invited the J.F. Kennedy 
Library Corporation to consider building the 
Library at the Harbor Campus, Kit Clark 
rallied the Dorchester community to the 
warm and persuasive support that was so 
critical in the Corporation's decision. 
And when the Board was asked to reconsider 
its determination to build a physical educa- 
tion building on the campus, Kit forcefully 
reminded us that the facility was of crucial 
importance not only to the University and its 
students, but to our good neighbors. 

Though she was closest to the Harbor Campus, 
Kit Clark was actively concerned with the entire 
University. She served as a member of the 
Executive Committee, the Committee on Long- 



' 



« 



-2- 



« 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Range Planning, and the Committee on 
Buildings and Grounds. 

She was deeply concerned about the quality 
and character of services provided to 
students. 

We will remember Kit Clark as a warm and 
wise Trustee who brought to the Board plain 
talk and a keen sense of humor, great 
energy and dedication, and an incisive 
understanding of the mission and responsibility 
of the University. 

The resolution passed unanimously with a standing vote. 

Trustee Spiller asked leave to depart from the order of 
the agenda in order to introduce a related matter. He said that 
Chancellor Golino had recommended to the Buildings and Grounds 
ommittee that the new physical education complex be named for 
Trustee Clark. The recommendation had received strong support 
from the University and the Dorchester Community. It was then 
noved and seconded and unanimously 

VOTED : To name the new physical education building 
of the University of Massachusetts at Boston 
the Catherine Forbes Clark Physical Education 
Center, in recognition of Mrs. Clark's sub- 
stantial contributions to the University and 
her particular concern with developing a constructive 
partnership between the Harbor Campus and the 
Dorchester Community. 

The meeting then turned to the Presidential Agenda. 
President Wood said he wished to add to the remarks about Trustee 
Clark by recalling one of her great dimensions — her capacity to 
serve the University in so many different roles and in so many 
different ways. She would be missed both as a person and as a 
doer. 

A more cheerful note, the President continued, was the 
opportunity to welcome Professor Patterson to his first Board 
neeting since being chosen Interim President. He recalled his 
long professional and personal relationship with Professor 
Patterson. Later in the meeting the Trustees would be asked to 
approve certain personnel actions designed to insure a smooth 
change-over. As part of this change-over, Father Walsh had agreed 
to act as Transition Officer. 

On December 5, President Wood continued, he had signed 
a contract with the Commissioner of Public Welfare, thus enabling 



4399 



Board 
12/7/77 



UM/Boston — 
Naming of New 
Physical Educa- 
tion Building 
for Catherine 
Forbes Clark 



Presidential 
Agenda 



Welcome of 
Interim Pres- 
ident Patterson 



-3- 



i 



4400 



Board 
12/7/77 



UM/Amherst — 
Chancellor' s 
Comments 



UM/Boston — 
Chancellor ' s 
Comments 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the Title XX program to get underway. This was a major step 
forward in terms of adding to the dimensions of the University's 
efforts in lifelong learning and service to the Commonwealth. 

As the Trustees had been told, President Wood continued, 
the position of the University on the gymnasium at UM/Boston, 
now the Catherine Forbes Clark Physical Education Center, had been 
judicially confirmed and advertisements for bids had been published 
Bids from the subcontractors were to be submitted by December 21; 
those from general contractors, December 28. Because of the long 
delay between the time the appropriation was made and the time of 
bidding the project, inflation had reduced the real dollars 
available for the building. University Counsel was working with 
the judge to see if contingency funds were available to remedy 
this situation. It was probable that Professor Patterson would 
be able to inform the Board of specific construction dates within 
a short time. The proposed renovation of 100 Arlington was going 
apace. The Senate Ways and Means Committee had recommended a 
renovation appropriation of $980,000. Some sixty design firms 
had expressed interest in the project and the final choice would 
be made by the Commissioner of Administration and Finance on 
December 9. 

As to the Capital Outlay Budget as a whole, President 
Wood said, a total of $13,565,000 had been recommended by the 
Senate Ways and Means Committee — $6,810,000 for Amherst; 
$2,975,000 for Worcester; $2,800,000 at Boston, and the just 
mentioned $980,000 for 100 Arlington. The total was above that 
recommended by the House Committee. 

The President then reminded the Trustees that the 
language of previous appropriation acts had permitted the Univ- 
ersity to forego imposing a meals tax in the dining halls at 
Amherst. In the FY78 Act, the meals tax had been changed to a 
sales tax, which had to be imposed. Efforts were underway to 
seek legislative relief. President Wood then asked the Chancellor|s 
for their comments. 

Chancellor Bromery said the University's athletic teams, 
both male and female, had just completed their most successful 
fall season ever. Individuals as well as teams had won top re- 
gional and national honors. In addition, revenues from the two 
television appearances by the football team had eased the pressurejs 
on the sorely taxed Barber Athletic Fund, the only financial 
support of the most comprehensive intercollegiate program in the 
region. The Chancellor said he wished to offer his congratula- 
tions to all those who took part in the program. 

Chancellor Golino said he had no official report to 
make. However, he did want to add a personal note about Trustee 
Clark. He recalled that when he first arrived, his immediate 
responsibility was to oversee the move to the Harbor Campus. Kit 
Clark had opened up her home to him and introduced him to many ■ 



-4- 



r 



i 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Dorchester residents. This made a very difficult task much easier 
and contributed greatly to the successful completion of the move. 
He said he wanted to note how much he had enjoyed her friendship 
and support . 

Chancellor Bulger said he would comment during the 
course of the meeting. 

The meeting then turned to the report of the Executive 
Committee. Chairman Healey said that the item, Appointment of 
Nominating Committee , had been dealt with in the just completed 
Executive Committee session and it had been agreed that he pro- 
pose members for the committee, the names would be presented to 
the Board for action at the special meeting of the Board to be 
held at 1:00 p.m. on January 11, 1978. Apropos of this, he said, 
the Trustees should know that a revision to the By-laws was being 
considered. The revision would remove the provision that each 
standing committee have no fewer than six members. If this re- 
vision was agreed upon, it would be recommended to the Board at 
the annual meeting in February. 

As to the agenda item, Personnel Actions Implementing 
Executive Personnel Decision of the November Meeting of the Board , 



WJJL 



Chairman Healey said these had been fully discussed at the Execu- 
tive Committee meeting in the presence of most Trustees. It was 
then moved and seconded and 



VOTED 



To accept the resignation of Robert C. Wood 
from the Office of the President effective 
January 1, 1978 and to authorize administrative 
leave for six months with pay for Dr. Wood 
commencing on January 1, 1978. 



and further 



VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as detailed 
in Trustee Doc. T78-038. 



and further 



VOTED : To authorize Carlo L. Golino an administrative 
leave for six months with pay for the period 
February 1, 1978 to July 30, 1978. 



and further 



VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as detailed in 
Trustee Doc. T78-039. 



and further 



VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as detailed 
in Trustee Doc. T78-040. 



■5- 



Board 
12/7/77 



Report of 
Executive 
Committee 

Appointment of 

Nominating 

Committee 



Personnel 
Actions 



Acceptance of 
Resignation of 
President Wood 
and Authoriza- 
tion of Adminis- 
trative Leave 



Authorization 
of Administra- 
tive Leave for 
Chancellor 
Golino 



Salary for 

Interim 

President 



4402 



Board 
12/7/77 



Report of 
Committee on 
Buildings and 
Grounds 

Approval of 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey concluded by noting that the matter of 
Salary Adjustments for Trust Fund Employees had been referred to 
the Committee on Budget and Finance. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Buildings and Grounds. Trustee Spiller said the Committee had met 
on December 1 and had a number of votes for Board consideration. 
The first was Renovation Plans, Schedule and Management Responsi - 
bility — 100 Arlington Street (Doc. T78-035) . He noted that the 
Designer Selection Board was concurrently meeting to recommend the 



Renovation Plans three "finalists" to the Commissioner on Administration and Finance 



for 100 Arling- 
ton Street 



The funds necessary for the renovation of four floors were in the 
appropriation process, as reviewed by President Wood. Completion 
of the work was presently expected to be July 1, 1978. He 
cautioned that there would be inevitable noise and disruptions in 
and around the building while the renovations were being made. 
He said that efforts were being made to eliminate as many dis- 
ruptions as possible. He concluded by noting that the Trustees 
should be aware that in approving Doc. T78-035 they were approving 
Alternative 2 for the 12th and 13th floors and Alternative B for 
the 7th and 8th floors. 

Trustee Baker said she had received a communication from 
the students of the College of Public and Community Service re- 
garding the renovation, which she wished to have sent to the 
Trustees. Chairman Healey said this would be done. 

Trustee Burack said it had been suggested that a pioneer- 
ing spirit would be needed during the interim period and she 
agreed with this suggestion. Also, she said she hoped that there 
would be a certain amount of flexibility in the planned renova- 
tions. Trustee Burack said the first and primary concern of the 
Trustees was for the students and faculty. Therefore, any external 
groups, not related directly to the operation of the University, 
who now hold space that will be superior to that which the faculty 
and the students are going to have to use in the next six months, 
really should be released in some orderly fashion. Trustee 
Burack stressed that the quality of the space assignments for 
students and faculty should be a high priority and should take 
precedence over the needs of any of the affiliated groups now 
using space in the building. For example, she said, in the 
particular kind of operation at the CPCS, privacy in consultation 
with students was extremely important. Unless people now in 
prime space are asked to go to space which is more open and less 
secure, and the students and faculty are able to use that space, 
there will be unnecessary dislocation. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved and 
seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the schematic plans for the 

renovations at 100 Arlington Street as shown 



-6- 



f 



» 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

in Doc. T78-035 and management arrangements 
appropriate thereto and to authorize the 
Committee on Buildings and Grounds to act for the 
Board in any approvals required before the 
February meeting of the Board. 

Trustee Spiller said the next item was Tri-River 
Family Health Center Plans, Specifications and Construction 



A<*n 



3403 



Agreement . This was a building which the University would be 
leasing rather than building. An agreement with the community 
corporation involved, however, gave the University final approval 
on all aspects of design and construction. Chancellor Bulger 
reminded the Trustees that the purposes of the Center had been 
gone into in detail at an earlier meeting. Two things that were of 
note were that the area was the only one in the state to have 
been designated as a medically underserved area and that the 
communities to be served were aware that the Center in addition 
to being a health care delivery site would also serve as a locus 
for teaching and learning by the Medical School staff and stu- 
dents. There was no further discussion and it was moved and 
seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the preliminary plans and specifica- 
tions for the construction of a building for the 
Tri-River Family Health Center in Uxbridge, Mass- 
achusetts , and authorize the President and Chancellor 
of the Medical Center to approve the final plans 
and construction of the building as outlined in 
the Construction Agreement included in Trustee 
Doc. T78-036. 

Trustee Spiller said he was having difficulty trying to 
describe the next item, not only because it was an option to sell 
rather than an option to purchase as stated in the agenda. The 
item had to do with the Murray D. Lincoln Land in Ohio. This land 
had been given to the University and it was a good gift. However, 
the true value of land was the price someone was willing to pay 
for it. Unfortunately no buyer for the land had appeared until 
recently. A hospital in Columbus, Ohio, was interested and had 
asked for a three-year option on the land. There was no further 
discussion, and it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED ; To authorize the Acting Treasurer to negotiate 
and to sign an option with St. Ann's Hospital 
in Columbus, Ohio, for the sale of a parcel of 
University land in Columbus as described in 
Trustee Doc. T78-034, on terms he deems 
financially prudent and consistent with the 
early disposition of this land, subject to 
review by the President and the General Counsel 
of the University. 



-7- 



Board 
12/7/77 



Approval of 
Preliminary 
Plans and 
Specifications 
for Tri-River 
Family Health 
Center 
Uxbridge 
(Doc. T78-036) 



Option on 
Murray D. 
Lincoln Land 
in Ohio 
(Doc. T78-034) 



4404 



Board 
12/7/77 

Approval of 
Preliminary Plans 
and Specifica- 
tions for Re- 
novation of 
Marine Station, 
Hodgkins Cove 
Gloucester 



Report of 
Committee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 

UM/Worcester — 
Learning 
Contracts 
(Doc. T78-032) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The next item concerned the UMass Marine Station at 
Hodgkins Cove. The proposed renovation would add 4,300 square 
feet to the present 3,200. The design had been done by the 
Planning Office at Amherst and the staff at the facility. There 
was no discussion and it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the preliminary plans and specifica- 
tions for the construction of an addition and 
related site improvements for the University of 
Massachusetts Marine Station at Hodgkins Cove, 
Gloucester, and to authorize approval of bidding 
documents based on these plans and specifications 
by the President or his designee. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy and the Committee on Student 
Affairs. Trustee Troy said the Committees had met jointly on 
December 1. The first item of business was Learning Contracts — 
UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-032) . The FY78 Appropriations Act directeji 
the Trustees to "institute learning contracts for students admitted 
for the fall of 1978 which include provisions for payback service 
or monetary payback to the Commonwealth for a period after said 
students have fulfilled all internship and residency requirements 

The proposal to meet this legislative mandate brought to 
the Committees, Trustee Troy continued, included the following 
recommendations — a monetary payback of $11,100 for each year of 
study at the Medical School; or a service payback of either 24 
months' work in the state in an area designated by the Chancellor 
as being medically underserved or 48 months' service in other 
areas of the state, either practicing medicine, doing research, 
administering or teaching. 



Trustee Troy said the Committees were alarmed and dis- 
mayed at this recommendation, and the ensuing discussion was 
detailed and comprehensive. Four members of the student body at 
Worcester spoke against terms of the learning contracts and the 
Trustees were told that faculty opposition to the proposal was 
strong. The main points of discussion were three: 

1. The concept of the contracts was regarded as 

discriminatory, singling out only medical students 
and making such contracts mandatory only at UM/ 
Worcester. While there are similar arrangements 
for Massachusetts residents attending Tufts and 
Boston University medical schools, there are 
differences. Those schools receive an $8,800 
yearly subsidy for each such student. The students 
pay $2,500 of the $5,800 tuition; and if they agree 
to work for 24 months in any area of the state 
after graduation, they receive a substantial re- 
mission of the unpaid tuition; nothing is said 
about the state subsidy, and the program is voluntary 



r 



i 



-8- 



I 



4405 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

2. Most students at Worcester are training to go 
into relatively low earning specialties such as 
family practice and pediatrics, not high earning 
specialties such as surgery. And, while statis- 
tics show that 46 percent of the students attend- 
ing medical schools across the country come from 
families earning $20,000 or less per year, the 
figure at Worcester is 60 percent. This is the 
group that will be hardest hit; 

3. Finally, concern was expressed that the proposal 
could have a negative effect on admissions. When 
applicants realized that on completion of their 
training they would be saddled with a debt of 
$44,400 or a service payback which could entail 
tax consequences in the order of $20,000, they 
would, given the choice, choose another school. 
That is, students accepted at other medical schools 
in addition to Worcester, a not unusual circum- 
stance, would almost certainly not attend Worcester 

At the meeting, Trustee Troy said, when it was asked 
how clearly and fully informed the framers of the Appropriations 
Act were about medically underserved areas in the state, Chancel- 
lor Bulger said that while there were pockets that could be so 
described, only one area — the Blackstone Valley — had been so 
designated by the federal government. Ironically, at this meet- 
ing of the Board, the Trustees would be asked to approve the es- 
tablishment of a health center, initiated by the Medical School, 
in this area. 

Trustee Troy said that one of the more hopeful state- 
ments that emerged from this gravely discouraging picture was 
that of Chancellor Bulger, "The language of the legislation per- 
mits the Board considerable latitude in determining the nature of 
the payback service and the financial obligations the students 
would assume if they chose the monetary payback." 

Trustee Troy said that all members of the Committees 
were troubled not only by this specific legislative action but by 
what it could portend for the future in other areas of public 
higher education. The tradition of land grant higher education, 
with its basic assumption of quality education at little or no 
cost, with the widest possible access for those students willing 
and able to seek it out, was one of the noblest and most fruitful 
inventions of the American past. He said he thought all of the 
Trustees would be deeply troubled to see this great and immensely 
successful experiment, which Sir Eric Ashby had described as the 
most significant innovation in university education since the 
Middle Ages, subtly undermined. It would be tragic indeed if 
what might prove to be shortsighted policies based upon limited 
and confined perspectives were to destroy this heritage. 



Board 
12/7/77 



-9- 



4406 



Board 
12/7/77 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Troy said that in light of what the Committees 
had learned at the meeting, the President and the Chancellor had 
been instructed to reconsider the original recommendations. This 
had been done and the votes now before the Board reflected the 
Committees' concerns. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved and 
seconded and 



VOTED : 



and further 



VOTED : 



UM/ Worcester — 
Consolidation 
of Departments 
of Medicine and 
Cardiovascular 
Medicine 
(Doc. T78-029) 



That the Board of Trustees request a public hearing 
of the Senate Ways and Means Committee to discuss 
Item 7411-005 of the FY78 Appropriations Act in 
order to: 

a. apprise the Committee of the grave implica- 
tions of the Item; 

b. request that the Committee submit legislation 
to the General Court which would defer imple- 
mentation of the learning contracts so that 
consequences (including tax liability) of the 
policy may be thoroughly researched prior to 
its implementation. 



That the Board of Trustees authorize the Chancellor 
of the Worcester campus to enter into learning con- 
tracts with students matriculating in the fall of 
1978, which will include provisions for payback 
services or monetary payback to the Commonwealth, 
it being understood that the monetary payback will 
in no instance exceed $8,000 for the four years of 
education leading to the doctorate in medicine and 
that the service payback will in no case be of more 
than one year's duration and will be in the area of 
health care consistent with the graduate's train- 
ing. 



The Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy, 
Trustee Troy continued, then considered the proposed Consolida- 
tion of Departments of Medicine and Cardiovascular Medicine — 
UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-029) . After a brief discussion it was 
moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the consolidation of the existing 
Departments of Medicine and Cardiovascular 
Medicine into the Department of Medicine as 
described in Doc. T78-029. 

Trustee Troy concluded his report by noting that the 
meeting had received reports on admissions at the three campuses 



-10- 



I 



I 



I 



»1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Because of the lateness of the hour it had been agreed to discuss 
this at a later meeting. 

The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Budget and Finance. Trustee Crain said the Committee had dealt 
with the Title XX Agreement at its November 16 meeting. At that 
meeting the Agreement had been discussed in detail with staff 
from the Institute for Governmental Services and the President had 
been authorized to sign the Agreement with the Department of 
Public Welfare. It was the consensus of the Committee that this 
was an extremely delicate and involved matter that would require 
careful administrative control; therefore the Committee will con- 
tinue to monitor the program. 

As regards Small Business/Minority Purchasing Progra m, 
Trustee Crain continued, significant progress had been made. 
He noted that Trustee Dennis was particularly concerned that it 
be understood that while commitments for services with minority 
groups were significant, the major indicators of success were 
actual payments . The Committee agreed to continue to monitor 
this program. 

Consistent with the Board vote of September 14, 1977, 
Trustee Crain continued, regarding the Divestment of South 
African Stock (Doc. T78-030), the Committee had received a report 



4407 



I 



from investment counsel recommending the sale and purchase of 
certain securities, 
seconded and 



Without discussion, it was moved and 



VOTED : To authorize the Associate Treasurer of the 
University, Robert H. Brand, to execute the 
sale and purchase of securities for the Endow- 
ment Fund Portfolio as contained in Doc. T78-030, 
Exhibit III. 

In the matter of Transfer of Funds for Audit , Trustee 
Crain said this transfer was necessitated by the recently com- 
pleted survey of past practices with regard to supplemental ex- 
penses. Without discussion it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the President to transfer $3,000 
from account 205905 to account 205510. 

Trustee Crain noted that the Tri-River Family Health 
Center had already been discussed, however a further vote was 
necessary. Without discussion it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED ; To authorize the Chancellor of the Worcester 
campus and the Associate Treasurer, acting as 
Treasurer, to enter into lease and construction 
agreements for the Tri-River Family Health 
Center in Uxbridge as set forth in Doc. T78-036, 



-11- 



Board 
12/7/77 



Report of 
Committee 
on Budget and 
Finance 

Title XX Agree- 
ment 



Small Business/ 
Minority 
Purchasing 
Program 



Divestment of 

South African 

Stock 

(Doc. T78-030) 



Transfer of 
Funds for Audit 



Authorization 
to Enter Into 
Lease & 
Construction 
Agreements 
for Tri-River 
Health Center, 
Uxbridge 



4408 



Board 

12/7/77 

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

as amended by substituting in Article 2.2 of 
the Lease for the phrase "not to exceed twenty- 
five years" the following: "not to be less than 
twenty years and not to exceed twenty-five years 

UM/ Amherst — In regard to the next vote on Revision to the Valley 

Revision to the Health Plan — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-031) , Trustee Crain said it 
Valley Health was the Committee's understanding that extending the Plan to in- 
clude all state employees would increase the efficiency of the 
service. Without discussion it was moved and seconded and 



Plan 
(Doc 



I 



T78-031) 



Transfer of 
Funds for 
Staff of 
Interim 
President 



Report of 
Presidential 
Search 
Committee 



VOTED : To amend the previous Trustee vote of April 7, 
1976 to read as follows: 

" VOTED : To authorize the Treasurer of the 

University to enter into a contract or 
contracts with the Valley Health Plan 
Inc., a Health Maintenance Organization, 
and Independent Practices Associates, Inc., 
a private medical group practice, to 
establish a HMO through which Commonwealth 
employees and their dependents may receive 
comprehensive health care services on a 
prepaid basis . " 

The final vote, Trustee Crain said, was consistent with 
the transition within the presidency and the obvious requirements 
of the Interim President. Without discussion it was moved and 
seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the President to transfer 

$14,000 from account 205905 to account 205510. 

The Board then heard the Reports of the Special Committees 
Trustee Breyer reported for the Presidential Search Committee . 
Since the last meeting the Committee had concluded the gathering 
of information about the problems of the University. The Com- 
mittee had met for a full day on the Boston campus and, as with 
the meeting at Amherst, the members were grateful to those who had 
attended the various meetings. A great deal had been learned. 
The commitment to public higher education was manifest in both 
students and faculty, as was great seriousness of purpose. 

The Committee also spent a day at Worcester and came away 
with a real feeling for the problems and strengths of the Medical 
Center. As well, individuals not directly connected with the 
University had been contacted. 



These meetings served to give a sense of what type of 
person should be considered for the presidency and to use as 
examples for testing possible candidates during interviews. 

The list of candidates had been reduced from 150 to 



I 



-12- 



II 



4409 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

about 35 serious candidates. The Committee would now gather fur- 
ther information about these individuals and conduct informal 
interviews. The Committee still hoped to come to the Board with 
the names of three to five individuals at the April meeting. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee on Labor Relations . Trustee Crain said the Committee had 
met with the chief bargaining officer of the University and had 
made a detailed review of the Union's demands. At the morning 
executive session of the Board the Committee had received input 
from the Trustees. The Committee had agreed to talk in greater 
detail with the Trustees before the special January meeting of 
the Board. This to ensure that the Board was kept current with 
the negotiating process and that the Committee was continually 
aware of the sense of the Board. 

Trustee Dennis reported for the Ad Hoc Committee on 
Audits , which the Board had voted to make a standing committee 
at the November meeting. The Committee had met with campus re- 
presentatives and had worked out operating procedures for the 
Committee. At the same time the Committee had asked the Associate 
Vice President for Business Affairs to advertise for candidates 
for the position of Director of Audits. 

The Board then heard the report of the Ad Hoc Committee 
on Interim Chancellor. Trustee Kassler reported as follows — ■ 



"The Committee met to discuss the procedures we would 
follow in this search, the restrictions, if any, to be imposed 
on candidates and to identify those qualities we felt the Acting 
Chancellor should possess. 

"While we realized that qualified candidates might be 
available from Amherst, we determined that it would be important 
to select a person currently associated with the Boston campus. 
The Committee also determined that it would be best for the 
University now and after the permanent President is selected, if 
the Acting Chancellor could not be a candidate for the permanent 
position. In making this decision we were cognizant of the pos- 
sibility that certain highly qualified men and women might now 
decide not to be considered for this temporary position. Never- 
theless, the Committee believes this restriction to be appropri- 
ate . 

"The Committee identified the following as some of the 
essential qualities we would be looking for: 

1) an ability to work with the Trustees and 
President Patterson in developing and 
defining the mission of the Boston campus, 

2) have a clear understanding that the Boston 
campus has a unique and multi- faceted role 



-13- 



Board 
12/7/77 



Report of 
Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee on 
Labor Rela- 
tions 



Report of 
Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee on Audits 



Report of 
Ad Hoc Com- 
mittee on 
Interim 
Chancellor 



4: 



Board 
12/7/77 



Recognition of 
President Wood 
for his service 
to the Univer- 
sity 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

and that it must interface with the overall 
goals and programs of the University at large, 

3) a demonstrated capacity to work with and 
relate to all constituencies on campus, 

4) possess administrative skills and be familiar 
with managerial and budgetary techniques. 

"The Committee plans to draft a notice for immediate 
distribution to all campuses soliciting suggestions as to those 
characteristics which are believed to be the most critical for 
the Acting Chancellor to possess and the names of individuals 
whom people believe would best meet those qualifications. The 
deadline for submitting names will be December 23, 1977 and all 
correspondence is to be directed to me at my Law Office, 85 
Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109. 

"We plan to meet with President Patterson, and 
immediately after the New Year we would also plan to meet with 
the Advisory Committee established by the Faculty and representa- 
tives of student organizations. We will personally interview 
those candidates whom we consider to be finalists, consult again 
with President Patterson and be prepared to report back to the 
Board with our recommendations during the second week in January. 

At the conclusion of the report Trustee Kassler asked 
that it be included in the minutes as a formal report. Trustee 
Burack seconded this. Chairman Healey asked if there were any 
comments. There were none. 

Chairman Healey said that in the absence of a delegate 
to the Board of Higher Education the formal agenda of the Board 
was complete. There were, however, two other matters. The first 
was a letter from former Trustee Carlson thanking the Board for 
its resolution on his leaving the Board. 



Chairman Healey then reminded the Trustees that this was 
the President's last official attendance at a Board meeting. He 
said he did not think this was the time for speeches, rather he 
asked the Board to stand in appreciation of the years of service 
Bob Wood had given to the University. The Trustees responded with 
a standing ovation. 

There was no further business to come before the Board, 



and the meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. 




John F. Miller 

Assistant to the Secretary 



-14- 



ATTENDANCE : 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

January 11, 1978; 1:00 p.m. 

Faculty Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Worcester 

Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Patterson 
Trustees Baker, Batiste, Breyer , Burack, Crain, Kassler, Krumsiek 
Marks, McNeil, Morgenthau, Robertson, Romer , Shearer, Spiller 
and Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Ms. Pinck re- 
presenting Trustee Dukakis; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee 
Winthrop; Treasurer Brand; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Trustees Absent : Trustees Dennis, Fielding, Gordon, McNulty, and 
Okin 

Central Administration Staff : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for 
Academic Affairs; Ms. Robinson, Vice President for Planning 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Professor Brogan, Faculty 
Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Golino; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for 
Administration and Finance; Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger 

The meeting came to order at 1:45 p.m. Chairman 
Healey asked if there were any corrections or additions to the 
minutes of the previous meeting. There were none, and it was 
moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the December 7, 1977 
meeting of the Board of Trustees. 

Chairman Healey then recognized President Patterson. 
The President said he had received the permission of Chairman 
Healey to address the Trustees. His remarks are appended to 
these minutes . 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



President Patterson then called on Chancellor Golino 
for his comments. Chancellor Golino noted that this would be 
his last appearance as Chancellor before the Board. He said he 
left his post with a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment 
with what he has tried to do over the past four and one-half yearjs 
The task he had been given by the Trustees had turned out to be 
much more complex than anyone had imagined. Nevertheless, at 
present the campus was in a healthy state; it functioned well 
administratively; was sound fiscally; and was much stronger ac- 
ademically than in 1973. 

Chancellor Golino said he continued to envision UM/Boston 



President 

Patterson's 

Comments 



UM/Boston 
Chancellor 's 
Comments 



Board 
1/11/78 



Executive 
Session 



Report of Ad 
Hoc Committee 
on Interim 
Chancellor — 
UM/Boston 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

as a university campus, and he was more than ever convinced that 
its mission was that of being the public institution of higher 
learning at the university level in Boston. 

Along with the accomplishments, the Chancellor continued, 
there were many things left unfinished and some failures. For 
these he accepted responsibility. Where successes had been 
achieved he owed a great deal to many people. He said he wished 
publicly and for the record to express his sense of deep personal 
gratitude to the entire staff at UM/Boston and in particular to 
four individuals — Mary Ungerman , his Administrative Assistant; 
Deborah Sweeney, his secretary; Heinz Bondy , Special Assistant 
to the Chancellor; and Herman James, Assistant Chancellor. 

Chancellor Golino was given a standing ovation. 

Chairman Healey then called for a motion to enter 
executive session to discuss collective bargaining and personnel 
matters. At 2:15 p.m. without discussion it was moved and 
seconded, and on roll call 

VOTED : To enter executive session. 

At 5:25 p.m. it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED: To return to open session 



Chairman Healey then called for the report of the Ad 
Hoc Committee on the Interim Chancellor — UM/Boston. Trustee 
Kassler reported as follows: 



"Following the Board of Trustees vote of December 7, 
1977 the Search Committee prepared a notice soliciting the names 
of candidates from Faculty, Staff, Students and Alumni. The 
notice included the guidelines and qualifications approved by the 
Board and was sent to all three campuses. The exam and vacation 
schedule at the Boston campus made it impossible for us to publish 
the notice in their newspaper; but with the assistance of central 
office staff and the Steering Committee of the University Assembly 
the notice was delivered to all Faculty and Professional Staff 
associated with the Boston campus. 



"The Committee then met with President Patterson and 
discussed with him his views on the critical qualities the Acting 
Chancellor should possess. President Patterson agreed that each 
of the qualifications adopted by the Trustees was important. He 
also suggested that the person selected should be someone not 
associated with the factionalism that has plagued the campus 
in the past; an individual capable of facing up to and making 
difficult decisions and sticking with those decisions and someone 
who was clearly perceived as poised and effective. 

"The Committee received 25 letters, 18 from faculty • 



-2- 



p 



i 



■ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

members, three from administrators, two from alumni, one from a 
student and one from a trustee. In addition we received a re- 
port from the Faculty-Student Advisory Committee chaired by 
Professor Pearson Hunt and a letter from four student organiza- 
tions. In all, a total of 20 candidates were proposed. 

"On January 6 we met at the Harbor Campus with eight 
members of the Faculty Advisory Committee, which had been organized 
by the Steering Committee of the Assembly. In slightly over two 
hours we received the names, qualifications and pluses and minusejb 
of almost every candidate who had been recommended. This group 
was most helpful to our deliberations and we thank them for their 
willingness to be frank and candid. Following this meeting we me: 
with three students and once again were provided with some of the 
most incisive comments and observations we were to hear. If 
these students are representative of the energetic, good-humored, 
bright and aggressive young men and women who attend UM/Boston, 
then we truly have much to be proud of and all the more reason 
to make the campus live up to the expectations of these young 
men and women. 

"Following our meeting we selected four individuals to 
be interviewed. Each was interviewed by the Committee on January 
9. Each candidate was impressive and would bring to the job 
different strengths. After reviewing what had been said by all 
of the people with whom we met, it is clear that the Acting 
Chancellor must — 

(a) develop a long-range program for the school, 
integrating all three colleges , 

(b) establish an open budget process that relates 
to the academic program, 

(c) restore a sense of community to the campus. 

"Having in mind the qualities set out by the Board and 
these objectives, the Committee unanimously recommends Claire A. 
Van Ummersen for appointment as Acting Chancellor. Ms. Van 
Ummersen combines a unique and distinguished academic background, 
a knowledge of the campus as both Professor and Administrator, 
a demonstrated ability to be an effective administrator and the 
respect and admiration of faculty, administrators and students. 

"Ms. Van Ummersen received her Bachelor of Science, 
Master of Science and Doctorate from Tufts University. She is a 
member of Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Chi and has written extensive- 
ly in her field of microwave radiology. She has been a member 
of the Biology Department since 1968, served as Associate Dean 
of Faculty of College II from 1975 to 1976 and in June of 1976 
assumed her current position as Associate Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs. She has been very involved with the Long- 



Board 
1/11/78 



■3- 



Board 
1/11/78 



Salary Adjust- 
ments for 
Trust Fund 
Employees 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Range Planning Committee on campus and is intimately familiar 
with the needs of faculty and administrators in the area of 
planning and budget. She is sensitive to the needs of non- 
traditional academic programs but committed to the pursuit of 
traditional academic excellence. 

"With the support of President Patterson and his staff, 
the support of the Board of Trustees and the support of the 
faculty, students and professional staff at the campus, Ms. Van 
Ummersen will most assuredly strike the proper balance to move 
UM/Boston forward. 

"I would like to formally thank the members of the 
Committee for their active participation throughout a tight 
schedule; all those people who took the time to write to us and 
meet with us (particularly the Faculty-Student Advisory Committee 
and the Alumni through their President, Al Russell); President 
Patterson and the members of the Central Office Staff." 

Without discussion it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To appoint Professor Claire Van Ummersen Chancellor 
ad interim of the University of Massachusetts at 
Boston as of February 1, 1978. 

In speaking on behalf of the Board, Chairman Healey 
said that with this appointment the Trustees could look forward 
to a dynamic period for UM/Boston. He said there was confidence 
that Chancellor Van Ummersen and President Patterson would work tb 
gether in a cooperative spirit for constructive change that would 
benefit all three colleges. A sense of community and awareness 
of purpose would be restored. The development and refinement of 
that purpose was one of the tasks that lay ahead. A definition 
of purpose cooperatively arrived at by all segments of the Univer 
sity would set the direction for long-range objectives. In the 
immediate future there were vital decisions to be made, primarily 
the institution of a formal planning process, the establishment 
of an open budget process and the implementation of a systematic 
program review. He concluded by noting that it was anticipated 
that a search committee for a permanent chancellor would soon be 
formed. President Patterson said he wished to say how delighted 
he was with the appointment of Professor Van Ummersen and to stat 
that he intended to work with her very closely. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Salary 
Adjustments for Trust Fund Employees . Without discussion it 
was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : In accordance with past University policy and 
practice, to authorize the President of the 
University to make salary adjustments for all 
non-union Trust Fund employees, comparable to 



-4- 



I 



' 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

but not exceeding the salary adjustments 
provided for State employees in CH 872 of 
the Acts of 1977; provided, however, that 
sufficient trust funds to meet the cost of 
such salary increases are available, 



Concurrence in 



In the matter of Concurrence in the Appointment of 
Vice President for Management , President Patterson noted that thii Appointment 
was an interim appointment which would be of great help to the of Vice 



Board 
1/11/78 



administration in dealing with management and business matters. 
It was then moved and seconded and 



VOTED 



and further 



VOTED 



To concur with the President's action in 
appointing George Kaludis to serve as Vice 
President for Management and Professor A of 
the University of Massachusetts from January 
15, 1978 to June 30, 1978. 



To approve the Personnel Action as set forth in 
Doc. T78-044 as amended by deleting the word 
"Trust" in the Source of Funds column and in- 
serting the words "Available, Trust if necessary." 



and further 



VOTED ; To authorize the President to transfer $10,000 
from account 205905 to account 205510. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Concurrence 



in the Appointment of Senior Vice President for University 
Collective Bargaining . President Patterson said that Chancellor 
Bromery had been the University's chief representative in on- 
going collective bargaining matters. He had asked to be relieved 
of his assignment as Executive Vice President and to be allowed 
to specialize in collective bargaining matters. There was no 
discussion, and it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To concur with the President's action in appointing 
Randolph W. Bromery to serve as Senior Vice Presi- 
dent for University Collective Bargaining in 
addition to his duties as Chancellor of the Amherst 
Campus, from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1978. 

Trustee Burack voted against the motion and asked that 
the record show that she did so because she felt the Amherst 
campus needed a full time chancellor. 

It was then moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as set forth 
in Trustee Doc. T78-043. 



-5- 



President for 
Manager 



Concurrence in 
the Appointment 
of Senior Vice 
President for 
University 
Collective 
Bargaining 



Board 
1/11/78 



UM/ Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
the Awards of 
Tenure 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item, Concurrence in the 
Awards of Tenure — UM/Amherst . Trustee Troy said the Committee 
on Faculty and Educational Policy had met and had agreed to re- 
commend concurrence in two awards of tenure. Without discussion 
it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To concur in the award of tenure by the President 
to Elizabeth Will as Associate Professor of 
Classics at the University of Massachusetts at 



Amherst, as set forth in Doc. T78-041. 



and further 



VOTED 



To concur in the award of tenure by the President 
to Joanne Tanner as Associate Professor of 
Music and Dance at the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst, as set forth in Doc. T78-042. 



Chairman Healey said there were only three other matterp 
to bring to the attention of the Board. Former Trustee Rowland 
has expressed her deep appreciation for the resolution passed by 
the Board on the occasion of her leaving the Board and had wished 
the Trustees well. Also, Trustees Batiste, Crain, Kassler and 
Troy had agreed to serve on the Nominating Committee and Trustee 
Burack had agreed to chair the Committee. Lastly, the Chair was 
seeking another Trustee to serve on the Presidential Search 
Committee. 

There was no further business to come before the Board, 
and the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 





n\^ 



fbhn F. Miller 
Assistant to the Secretary 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



Remarks to the Board of Trustees 
The University of Massachusetts 



by 

Franklin Patterson 
President 



Worcester, Massachusetts 
January 11, 1978 



I 



p 



I 



There is a warm and very human novel by Chaim 
Potok called In The Beginning , about the early years 
and education of a very famous Jewish scholar, David 
Lurie. 

In the novel, David remembers his mother telling 
him when he was sick as a little child, "All beginnings 
are hard. But you'll be all right soon," 

He remembers his father saying to him when he 
found a passage of Bible commentary too difficult to 
read at age nine: ''You want to understand everything 
immediately? Just like that? You only began studying 
this commentary last week. All beginnings are hard... 
go over it again and again," 

And he remembers his teacher speaking to him in 
a gentle voice about his studies: "Be patient, David. 
The midrash says 'all beginnings are hard.' You cannot 
swallow all the world at one time." 

Beginning the assignment ycu have given me, I've 
thought about these traditional bits of advice from 
time to time. Not because beginning as your President 
has been made "hard" by anyone in particular. Quite 
the reverse has been the case—all of you present here 
today and many others have been of immeasurable, 
generous help in getting me started. But I've thought 
of Chaim Potok 's words because beginning to administer 
and try to lead this University— even for a transition 
period— faces one with a great and complex task. One 
needs to have the faith David's mother urged, that 
things will become better, if not — in her words — "all 
right soon." One must heed the advice David's father 
gave, to work hard, going over things again and again. 
And one certainly needs to listen to David's teacher 
counselling patience — that you can't swallow the whole 
world at once. 

With that as a simple introduction, I'd like to 
talk with you for a bit about three things concerning 
our work together in the period ahead. The first of 
these is a brief word about myself and my approach to 
the work you've given me. The second has to do with 
this Board itself and some considerations about your 
work as those who hold the University in trust for 
the Commonwealth. The third matter about which I wish 



• 






I 



to speak concerns some of the priorities I think we need 
to address in the next six months with all the energy 
and intelligence we can command. 

Let me speak first about the presidency and my 
approach to it. 

When Chairman Healey telephoned me from Worcester 
at the time of your November meeting to inquire whether 
I would accept this appointment , I asked him if the 
Trustees wanted a caretaker for the interim period or 
someone who would serve as President in fact as well as 
in name. Chairman Healey told me it was his impression 
the Trustees did not want a nominal chief executive 
pro tern, but a person who would administer strongly and 
help the Board move actively on matters which should 
not wait for the coming of a new long-term President. 
Given that assurance— conf irmed by later statements of 
other Trustees — I accepted the appointment. I believe 
it's important for me to make it clear why I did so. 

I had in no personal or other way desired or 
sought the position you decided to ask me to take. 
Having served for five years as the founding President 
of a college of which I am proud, I had no longing 
for status or position which I aspired to satisfy as an 
administrative officer of this University. I was 
happy teaching in the excellent Political Science 
Department of our Boston campus and conducting my 
research on the General Court. 

The reason I accepted the presidency on an 
interim basis was two-fold and very simple. First, I 
believed there was a real need for a chief executive 
to serve the University in an active, deeply committed 
mode during the transition, interim period, and — if 
you can forgive an old-fashioned view of things — I 
saw it as my duty to accept the responsibility as it 
was defined. Second, I accepted because I understood 
that the Board was prepared, indeed eager, to go 
forward with certain important current tasks essential 
for the University's welfare. 

It is within this context that I will seek to 
serve you as an active — not passive — interim President. 
To be effective in the Univeristy's interest, my 
service will not only need the best that I can bring 



2- 









I 



to it, with my associates' help, but it will also need 
your support in addition to your wise counsel and your 
steady guidance. As any other president would, I will 
serve only at your pleasure. In turn, the Board should 
know that, if absence of support for me should develop 
during the interim period, I will be most happy to 
return to my professorial duties with all dispatch. 

These things are perhaps important to mention 
because I will not be able to serve you adequately in 
the months ahead if the confidence you've shown me at 
the beginning is not sustained. Naturally it is my 
responsibility to earn and deserve your confidence 
through what I do. But our situation is such—in the 
present few months more than at other more settled 
times — -that there is an unusual need for Board backing 
to be clearly, unmistakably, and generously extended 
if we are to move effectively. Thus far, Trustees 
without exception have been deeply supportive of what 
I have begun to try to do, and I am indeed grateful. 

Let me then speak secondly about the Board of 
Trustees, about your own role--not only in the period 
of transition, but in the continuing history of this 
University . 

The quality of each American college or university 
is set in some significant measure by a uniquely 
American instrumentality we call its Board of Trustees. 
The Trustees of an institution of higher education are 
entrusted with its direction, care, and welfare by the 
larger public interest. They set its policies, seek 
its resources, give it oversight in its performance, 
guard its integrity, and select its top management whom 
they hold closely accountable. The Board of Trustees 
provides the controlling governance of the enterprise, 
its link with tradition and history, and its capacity 
for forward vision. At the same time, the members of 
the American college or university board do not — at best-- 
mix trusteeship with day-to-day management. They 
articulate and control the policies that guide actual 
operations, but they do not attempt to enter into or 
allow themselves to be drawn into trying to give 
individual or group direction to the day-to-day work 
of their institution. They choose a president to see 
that this is done, and they remove him or her when 
they are not satisfied. The strong, effective Board 



r 



i 



i 



of Trustees is anything but a rubber stamp for such a 
president. At the same time , an effective Board sees 
its president — subject always to final and even peremptory 
control—as both a leader and an executive without whom 
the institution for which they are responsible cannot 
thrive «, 

Against this background , there are several things 
1 believe it's useful to emphasize about the past, present, 
and future of this Board. 

One is that the Board of Trustees of the University 
of Massachusetts has been, is, and will be in the fore- 
seeable future the most crucial element in the evolving 
quality of the University itself. It is no accident 
that the University of Massachusetts has risen in less 
than twenty years from "Mass Aggie" to one among equals 
in important land-grant universities of the American 
states. Much credit goes to the people of the Common- 
wealth who understood the need for a people's university, 
and to the governors and legislators of the past two 
decades who shared that understanding. But the central 
credit must go, in my estimate, to the Board of Trustees 
in that period, and to a fortunate series of three hard- 
driving, education-oriented Presidents. 

On the Board's side, dozens of names of servants 
pro bono publ ico come to my mind , but none more than 
Frank L. Boyden, after whom my own professorship is 
named, and who served this Board as Chairman for ten of 
the 56 years he was headmaster of Deerfield Academy-- 
or Joseph Healey, who has given 18 years of service to 
this Board of Trustees, eight of them as Chairman. On 
the presidential side, I think, of course, of Joan Paul 
Mather, who more than any man in the crucial years 
1954-1960 made the case for a real public university in 
Massachusetts; of John Lederle, who built the great new 
campus at Amherst between 1960 and 1970; and of Robert 
Wood, who carried the institution forward from 197 to 
1977 to its present status as a university-level resource 
for the whole Commonwealth, including Boston and Worcester. 

But it is the Board's role in the history of the 
emergence of the University of Massachusetts as a genuine 
university that is most important, now and in the fore- 
seeable future. 



1 



s 



I 



After a period of enormous growth and change, 
the University of Massachusetts is now faced with a 
commanding challenge to begin a courageous consoli- 
dation of strengths, new consideration of programs, 
and prudent new deployments of resources in the service 
of the Commonwealth. It is precisely the responsibility 
of this Board of Trustees to meet that challenge, to do 
so within intelligently considered unity, and with 
strong positive initiatives of its own. I have every 
confidence that this great responsibility will be met. 

Now is a time truly in which major leadership 
comes back wholly and fully to the Board itself. This 
is not to say responsibility for day-to-day operation 
or the details of the University's daily work, but it 
is to say that the destiny of the University now depends 
most crucially on the coherence of the Board of Trustees 
as an organization and on the ability of the individuals 
who are Trustees to work effectively with each other 
for the welfare of the institution and the Commonwealth 
it serves . 

I take it as my most important obligation during 
the brief period in which I will be your chief executive 
to assist in every way I can to enable the Trustees to 
collaborate with each other with the greatest possible 
effectiveness as servants of a larger public. 

In the full scrutiny of a concerned public, I 
believe that we must be willing to listen to each other 
in all frankness and objectivity, that we must be 
unafraid to be critical or to consider criticism on its 
own merits, and that--most of all--we must press forward 
together, positively, beyond whatever superficial 
differences may divide us toward a realization of the 
University's broad and precious purposes. 

Let me speak thirdly, then, about some main 
priorities which, with your direction, guidance, and help, 
I propose we address during the next half year. 

The first four of these priorities are broad, 
with many specific applications and practical steps involved 
with them. The fifth deals with program planning and 
decision-making which it would not be right to delay for 
the arrival of a new long-term president. The first four 
items are not listed in order of importance — all of them 



„ 5 » 



1 






I 



are important and all of them need our attention. 

Considered thus, one priority that faces us in 
this new period of our institution's history is to 
preserve and strengthen the University as a coherent, 
vjorkable system. 

Sometimes, in our difficulties, we tend to forget 
what a remarkable achievement the University of Massa- 
chusetts is, and forget the kind of pride we should take 
in it. Late among the states of the Union, Massachusetts 
has built a significant public univesity, worthy of the 
name and heritage of the state, and capable of providing 
public university opportunity for all the people. 

Now, in a transition which reflects many difficult 
forces and circumstances, and in a time when the 
University system is not directed by a long-term presi- 
dent, there are inevitable, understandable tendencies 
toward entropy, fragmentation, and diminution of the 
strength of the University system, whose whole is 
entrusted to you. 

I take it as a significant part of my responsi- 
bility to help the Board maintain and strengthen the 
University both as a whole and in its parts. In practical 
terms, this means many things. It means that I will work 
with and study the central administration of the University 
system, with the expectation that I will return to you 
before June 30 with recommendations regarding its future 
functions. It means that I will press as hard as I can 
for effective administrative relationships between the 
central University administration and the campuses, 
thoroughly respecting established lines of authority 
and responsibility and expecting them to be respected 
in turn. And it means that I will work hard to strengthen 
the system's concept of Common Services, established 
on a University-wide basis by former Vice President 
Jay Janis . My proposal to you for the interim appoint- 
ment of Dr. George Kaludis to fill the position formerly 
held by Mr. Janis is evidence of this commitment. 

Another general priority, closely linked to the 
first, is to work in every effective way to control both 
expenditures and our quality of performance--and to 
secure a budget which will enable the University to do 
its job. Securing that kind of budget is absolutely 



6- 



1 



♦ 



dependent on the best demonstration we can give that 
our quality and expenditure controls are what they 
should be. This Board is showing — through its Budget 
and Finance Committee, its new Committee on Audits, 
its Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy, and 
in other ways — that it takes its responsibility for 
control of expenditures and quality very seriously 
indeed. It is up to us who work within the daily 
operation of the University to do at least as well. 
And at the same time, it is up to all of us who are 
members of the University—Trustees , faculty, students, 
and administrators—to help the legislature and the 
Governor understand the budget requirements that are 
necessary for a state university worthy of Massachusetts 
to serve the Commonwealth adequately. 

A third broad priority for this next half year, 
about which it is certain we must make real progress, 
is to pursue more effectively the difficult but abso- 
lutely essential task of managing, maintaining, 
renovating the University's physical plant at the 
three campuses. I will not go into detail with regard 
to this priority this afternoon, only to stress that 
a physical plant whose total replacement cost today 
might come to something well over a billion dollars 
is our great responsibility to defend and protect 
for reasons that have to do as much with fiscal 
prudence as with the quality of our education and 
research,, 

A fourth priority is to strengthen the image of 
the University during the next half year. This means 
as much the self-image of the University — how we look 
at ourselves and talk ^bout ourselves— as it means 
strengthening our image with the public-at-large and 
with the government of our state. For what it proposes 
to be, the University of Massachusetts is a great 
institution, and we should be proud indeed to be 
associated with it. While I believe fervently that 
this is true, I am also aware that both internally 
and externally the image of the University has 
suffered in the mid-seventies. It's an obligation 
of all of us to try to help turn this situation 
around, to bring perception in line with reality, and 
to correct raality where it has contributed to 
damaging the way the University is seen. I've tried 



•7- 



J 



_. v 



1 



I 



I 



to make it clear to representatives of the media that 
I believe in full disclosure to the greatest practicable 
degree as far as a public institution is concerned. 
We should welcome public scrutiny, and we should 
expect our failings and foolishnesses to be known. At 
the same time , we should not be content for the media 
to go unaware of the remarkable range of strengths and 
positive contributions the University daily provides 
to thousands of students , to state government, to 
scores of cities and towns, and to the public at large. 
The public information officers of our three campuses 
already know my views on this matter, and I am sure 
they will try to help us. At the same time, the task 
is one that goes not just to them, but to all of us, 
because the health of the University- — its support by 
ourselves and others — depends so heavily on a balanced 
understanding of the institution's great qualities as 
well as of its deficiencies. 

Beyond these four broad priorities that I see 
for the coming half year, there is an important fifth 
one which I mentioned earlier. This priority is for 
us to press forward as a way of helping the new long- 
term president rather than preempting his options-- 
with crucial programmatic planning and decision- 
making that only this Hoard can undertake. While you 
must be responsible for the major policy, planning, 
and decision-making of a programmatic nature to which 
I refer, I see it as my responsibility and that of the 
Chancellors and others to help by identifying options 
and formulating alternative recommendations as well 
as developing the data and analyses that will be useful 
to you. But most of all, I see the crucial programmatic 
planning and decision-making that lies ahead as requiring 
strong, concerted, positive initiative and leadership by 
the Board of Trustees itself . My own way of trying to 
contribute to that leadership and initiative-taking 
will be to cause steps. to be taken and to present my 
own views to you on the following kinds of programmatic 
matters : 

1. One is an overall clarification by the Board 
of what it sees now as the proper role and mission of 
this University as a whole in the period ahead . 

In the 1960 's, the University went through massive 

-8~ 



1 



< 



\ 



growth and diversification. By the end of the seventies, 
growth has come to an end, or so it appears, many new 
constraints have developed, and a complicated period 
lies ahead in the eighties . It is a time when the 
Board of Trustees should look again at the major 
purposes of the institution and the institution's best 
configuration. This process can be begun in the next 
half year. 

2 . A second crucial programmatic task that lies 
before this Board is to clarify the mission of the 
Universi t y of Massachusetts at Boston and make general 
re source planning comm itm ents for that c ampus to which 
the Board will seek to hold. 



It is no news that the Boston campus has been a 
troubled one since the beginning. At the same time, 
the University at Boston stands as a remarkable 
accomplishment in itself, endowed with a splendid 
faculty, the beginnings of a basically excellent plant, 
and inspiring students. The campus has been beset, 
however, by factionalism both pedagogical and ideological, 
and by serious uncertainty over its resources, responsi- 
bilities, and purposes. While many at the campus have 
made valiant efforts to move beyond such uncertainty, 
it appears to me that it is essential for the Board to 
recognize its own responsibility in this regard and to 
begin without any unnecessary delay to establish itself 
solidly the main lines of the Boston campus's development 
into the 1980 's 

3 • On a third front, the Board has a similar 
responsibili ty to~give direction t o the University as 
a whole in terms of what will be expected and will be 
supported in the way of graduate education . 

At present, there is a policy vacuum on this 
matter and great uncertainty at all three campuses — an 
uncertainty which only ■ the Board of Trustees can itself 
resolve. I've studied this matter myself both in 
detail and in terms of general policy considerations, 
and I will make my own recommendations known to the 
Trustees when you consider it appropriate. 



-9- 



i 



< 



I 



4 . A fourth programmatic matter has to do with 
the need for vastly improved articulation between the 
University and the community colleges of the Commonwealth . 

Again, I believe Trustee initiative is important 
to insure that our people will consider more imaginatively 
and carefully how the University of Massachusetts can 
interact most usefully with the excellent community 
colleges of the state. I have taken a first step in this 
direction by meeting with five community college presidents 
of the Boston area and with the new head of the community 
college system of the state. In the future, I will 
return to the Board with specific suggestions for our 
better collaboration with these new grass-roots institution: 
of higher education. 

5 . Another area of crucial programmatic planning 
and decision-making with which the Board of Trustees 
needs to be concerned is that having to do with the 
future of University extension work or continuing education 

At present, at the Board level there is a policy 
vacuum in this regard . University-wide planning or 
coordination has proceeded usefully in the past two years 
but it, and necessary steps for coordination, have not 
yet had suitable Board attention. This matter deserves 
the attention of the Board of Trustees in time to insure 
that directions desired by the Trustees will be pursued, 
and that commitments will not be made which may fall 
outside the Board's attentions. The whole issue is a 
very important one in a period when we are just beginning 
to understand the need for institutions of higher 
education to take a more imaginative approach to the 
changing nature of student clientele groups. 

6 . Both in programmatic planning and in daily 
operations, there is need for greater Board and 



administrative 


attention to 


the 


whol 


e matter 


of 




affirmative action 


and the < 


active ef 


fort to 


overcome 


discrimination 


of all kinds 


--ags 


Linst 


women,, minori 


ty 


group members, 


the 


handicapped , 


and 


others . 







While this may appear largely an administrative 
matter, it is a matter so important in my judgement 
that it deserves and requires the continuing attention 
of the central governing body of the University. I 
will seek to make this possible „ 



■10 



„ 



i 



i 



7 . On another front, there is need for us to 
share in identifying crucial , unique targets of 
opportunity to improve the status of the University . 

For example, it is important for the Trustees 
themselves to be involved in decisions about such 
matters as the best ways in which the University as 
a whole may be related to the John F. Kennedy Presidential 
Library, the State Archives, the great W.E.B. Dubois 
Collection at Amherst, and other special resources 
and connections. 

8. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, 



duri 


ng the ne: 


:t si 


^» 


months , 


i t i r. c f 


th 

uT-S 


e utmost 
and sus 


imoc 
tain 


•r ua 

rat 


nee 


for 


the Board 


o: r I 


'ru 


st.ees t 


o 2 • e a c t i v 




a pr 


ccess of long- 


■ra 


nge pi a 


lining thr 


ouq 


h which 


msp.i 


ion 


and 


direction 


may 


be 


given 


to all of 


th 


ose who, 


a t t 


he 




camp 


uses , are 


eager 


and anxious to g 


et 


on with 


the 


s 




task 


s of planning 


th 


at must 


be done 


in 


order for thi 




Univ 


ersity to 


thrive 


• 















Thus, I come to the end of the three topics that 
I wished to touch upon with you in this our first meeting. 
I have tried to tell you a little bit about my own 
approach to this interim presidency and my profound 
sense of need for this excellent Board to give scope and 
Support to its temporary chief executive in preparation 
for the arrival of a new long-term president. Second, 
I have tried to stress how high my regard is for this 
Board and what it has accomplished in the past and 
present, and my sense that the great tasks of leadership 
lie squarely in the hands of the Trustees who sit at 
this table. Third, I have sketched several broad 
priorities which I hope that we can pursue together, 
together with some specific, crucial programmatic 
planning and decision-making activities that I trust 
we can move forward upon in the coming six months. 



■11- 



t 




J 



I 



ATTENDANCE 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF ANNUAL MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

February 1, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 
Memorial Hall 
University of Massachusetts/Amherst 

Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey, President Patterson 
Trustees Baker, Batiste, Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Kassler, 
Krumsiek, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, Robertson, Romer , 
Shearer and Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig, 
Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis, Mr. Schulman representing 
Trustee Fielding, Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop ; 
Treasurer Brand; Ms. Eichel, Assistant Secretary; Mr. Miller, 
recorder 

Absent Trustees : Trustees Spiller and Okin 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Ms. Rob in- 1 
son, Vice President for Planning; Ms. Hanson, Budget Director and 
Associate Vice President 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Mr. Littlefield, Director of Planning; Professor 
Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr, Baxter, Vice Chancellor 



for Administration and Finance 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 



for Administration and Finance 

The meeting came to order at 2:15 p.m. Chairman Healey 
asked if there were any amendments or corrections to the minutes 
of the previous meeting. There were none and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the January 11, 1978, 
special meeting of the Board of Trustees. 

The meeting then turned to the agenda item Amendment of 



Trustee By-Laws . Chairman Healey said it had been agreed to 
amend the amendment to Article III, Section 3, so that standing 
committees would not be limited to a maximum of six Trustees. 
The By-Laws would state that a standing committee would have no 
fewer than three members; however, it was the sense of the 
Trustees that normally the committees would have no more than 
six members. There was no further discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : To amend the By-Laws of the Board of Trustees 
(Doc. T76-051, as amended) as follows: 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



Amendment of 
Trustee By-Laws 



Board 








2/1/78 


UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 






(1) 


By striking out Section 1 of Article III and 
inserting in place thereof the following: 

SECTION 1. STANDING COMMITTEES. There shall 
be seven standing committees of the Board of 
Trustees: (1) Executive Committee; (2) Com- 
mittee on Faculty and Educational Policy; 
(3) Committee on Buildings and Grounds; (4) 
Committee on Budget and Finance; (5) Commit- 
tee on Long-Range Planning; (6) Committee on 
Student Affairs; (7) Committee on Audits. 


1 




(2) 


By striking out the word ''six" in Section 3 
of Article III and inserting in place thereof 
"three." 






(3) 


By striking out Section 12 of Article III. 






(4) 


By renumbering Section 13 of Article III 
("The Nominating Committee") as Section 12. 






(5) 


By renumbering Section 14 of Article III 
("The Committee on Audits") as Section 13, 
and by striking out the last sentence of said 
section. 


a 


Report of 


The meeting then discussed Approval of Officers and 


f 


Nominating 


Committees for 1978 (Doc. T78-055A) . Trustee Burack, reporting 




Committee 


as Chairman of the Nominating Committee, said the Committee had 
met on January 25, 1978. The committee was recommending that 
Chairman Healey be re-elected and, in view of the fact that a 
study of the role of the Office of the Secretary of the Board 
and of the Treasurer was being undertaken, that the Board con- 






tinue to operate 


with an acting Secretary and an acting Treasurer 


» 




She noted no recommendation was being made for the Delegate to 






the Board of Higher Education, as Chairman Healey would deal with 






this matter later in the meeting. There was no further discus- 






sion and it was moved, seconded and 




Approval of 


VOTED: To confirm and approve the Officers of the Board 




Officers and 


and 


the Committee assignments as contained in 




Committees 


Doc 


. T78-055A, for the period February 1978 to 




for 1978 


the 


annual meeting of 1979. 




(Doc. T78-055A) 










Chairman Healey thanked the Nominating Committee for 






its efforts and 1 


:he Trustees for their vote of confidence. Dur- 






ing 1978, he continued, the Board would face a number of prob- 






lems which would 


demand the Trustees' time, energy and dedica- 






tion to a greater extent than ever before. The Commonwealth was 






fortunate to have Trustees who were capable of meeting these de- 


[1 




mands, he said. 


-2- 


1 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The meeting then turned to the Presidential Agenda. 
President Patterson said that the most important matter he had 
to bring before the Board was the revision to the FY 1979 Budget 
Request which would be dealt with at this meeting. The summary 
which had been distributed showed the comparisons between the 
original FY 1979 request, and the proposed revision thereto, and 
the recommendations of the Governor contained in House I, those 
of the Board of Higher Education, and those of the Secretary of 
Education. 

The University's revised request, the President con- 
tinued, totalled just over $127.2 million. The House I recom- 
mendation was $116.3 million, an increase of $7.1 million, or 
6.5 percent, over the FY 1978 budget of $109.2 million. Given 
the rate of inflation, the House I recommendation represented at 
best a standstill budget. When compared with the total antici- 
pated expenditures for FY 1978, including funds for salary adjust- 
ments, the total increase came in at $3.8 million, or 3.3 percent 

The President said it was important to note that the 
House I recommendation did not include funds for any new posi- 
tions or for the filling of currently authorized vacant positions, 
excepting 20 faculty positions at the Medical School. There were 



Board 
2/1/78 



■ 



no funds recommended for new programs 
consider some level of inflation. 



House I, however, did 



Bright spots in House I were the recommendations of a 
special appropriation of $900,000 for library books and an in- 
crease of $100,000 in the student aid program. These stipula- 
tions, however, were part of an unsatisfactory overall total. 

The University, he continued, would receive the smallest 
increase of any of the segments of public higher education in the 
state. Southeastern Massachusetts University would receive 15.7 
percent; Lowell, 11.7; the State Colleges, 6.8; and the Community 
Colleges, 8.1. The increase recommended for the University was 
6.5 percent. Trustee Troy asked if this was a repeat of what 
happened in the last budget cycle. Ms. Hanson said it was just 
the reverse — last year the University had received the largest 
percentage increase. 



ments. 



The President then asked the Chancellors for their com- 



! 



Chancellor Bromery introduced Jeremiah Allen, newly 
appointed Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost. 
At Chancellor Bromery 's request, Mr. Woodbury reported that the 
Amherst campus had just completed the installation of some 6,800 
smoke detectors in the residence halls. This had been completed 
in record time because of the cooperation of everyone involved, 
particularly members of the Physical Plant staff. 



UM/Amherst — 
Chancellor's 
Comments 



-3- 






Board 
2/1/78 

UM/Worcester- 

Chancellor's 

Comments 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chancellor Bulger said he had several things to report: 
Dr. Hickler, Lamar Soutter Distinguished Professor of Geriatric 
Medicine, had recently set up a division of geriatrics within the 
Department of Medicine. It was hoped that this division would 
one day offer services in all aspects of care of the elderly, not 
just clinical care. There was scientific merit in viewing the 
elderly as a separate kind of entity, as well as a national em- 
phasis in so doing. 

A related development which the Medical Center had been 
working on for over a year and a half' — a palliative care unit of 
five or six beds — would open within six weeks. This program, he 
said, would be devoted to the care of people who were terminally 
ill and who had to be hospitalized for brief periods. The thrust 
of the program was to enhance the care of such patients at home. 
It was designed to help not only the patients but also the fam- 
ilies of the patients. Such care, he noted, was reimbursable by 
both Medicare and the insurance companies. Home care of the 
terminally ill, Chancellor Bulger continued, involved the Visit- 
ing Nurses Association and volunteers, and a hospital back up was 
needed. When the terminally ill were hospitalized, they received 
only such care as was necessary for brief periods of time. At 
the time of hospitalization, volunteers were trained in the tech- 
niques of dealing with such matters. This would be the first 
such unit in a hospital in the United States. 

Chancellor Bulger then reminded the Trustees that at 
the February 1977 meeting they had approved a trust fund for con- 
tinuing medical education. The program at Worcester was among 
the first sixteen to be accredited and was very successful. 

Another event that the Trustees might wish to hear of 
involved a thirty- three year old man, the fire chief of Clinton, 
who died and was resuscitated by his fellows from the fire de- 
partment. The firemen had been trained in resuscitation tech- 
niques by cardiologists from the Medical Center. This, he said, 
was an example of the kind of thing that those at the Medical 
Center liked to do, and of the impact they wished to make. 

Chancellor Bulger concluded by noting that just at the 
point where the student body at the Medical School was reaching 
the size where per-student capitation payments from the federal 
government would be of importance to the budget, the government 
had decided to end the payments. 

President Patterson thanked Chancellor Bulger for the 
positive news from the Worcester campus. Emphasizing some of 
the fine things the University does and has done, he said, was a 
pattern each of the campuses could well follow. He then asked 
the Trustees to welcome Mr. Kaludis to his first Board meeting, 
and Chancellor Van Ummersen to her first Board meeting in her 
new role, and asked for her comments. 



-4- 



I 



1 



- 



I 



■ 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Board 
2/1/78 



Chancellor Van Ummersen thanked all those who had given 1 UM/ Bos ton — 
her such generous aid and support. These included the Trustees, j Chancellor T s 
the President, and the Vice Chancellors and staff at the Boston Comments 
campus. She said it was her intention in the coming months to 
work very hard in order to earn and deserve the confidence in 
her that all had expressed. During the period of her incumbency, 
she continued, the campus could not remain in the passive state 
of tasks that were essential to the welfare of the campus. These 
included: 

First, the need to develop an institutional momentum 
and to regain a sense of direction; the necessary long-range 
planning was not underway and the necessary data collection and 
analyses were nearly complete. What remained to be done was to 
synthesize a coherent plan — a plan which would address a number 
of key issues; for example, the interrelationships among the 
colleges; the diversity of programs and flexibility of scheduling 
to meet the needs of a diverse student population, which included 
students who had job and family responsibilities as well as aca- 
demic obligations; the University's need to be cognizant of the 
special needs of some students and the special abilities of 
others; and to develop graduate programs which would answer some 
of the needs of Boston area residents. There was also a need to 
increase the effectiveness of the administrative offices. 

Second, in terms of areas of importance, was the need 
for the campus to develop within itself a sense of community and 
a sense of pride in the institution. The former could be 
achieved by an increased openness and a sharing of information 
regarding the problems faced by the administration with the other 
parts of the campus community. 

The development of a sense of pride in the institution, 
Chancellor Van Ummersen continued, could be achieved by a con- 
scientious and sustained effort on the part of everyone to pre- 
sent the campus in its best possible light and to increase its 
visibility. It was necessary to recognize, in ways that had not 
been done before, the University's most important resource — the 
: distinguished faculty. The campus had to begin to seek ways in 
which to reward the kind of outstanding teaching and scholarly 
activity that took place on the Boston campus. 

The third area where development was needed was in 
adopting an open budget process , with a budget which could be 
linked to programmatic plans. This would allow for timely re- 
source allocations. 

These, Chancellor Van Ummersen concluded, were the 
major priorities which the campus would move forward on in the 
coming months . 



-5- 



Board 
2/1/78 



Report of Ad 
Hoc Committee 
on Labor Re- 
lations 



AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 
Council 93, 
Local 2612 
Agreement 
(Doc. T78-045) 



AFSCME, AFL-CIO, 
Council 93, 
Local 1776 
Agreement 
(Doc. T78-046) 



SEIU, AFL-CIO, 
Local 285 
Agreement 
(Doc. T78-058) 



Report of Com- 
mittee on 
Buildings and 
Grounds 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

President Patterson said the Trustees should know that 
the search committee that had selected the Chancellor had met 
with her last evening and indicated to her some of the many ways 
in which she could expect the support of the Board. 

Chairman Healey asked Trustee Krumsiek to report in 
behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee on Labor Relations. Trustee 
Krumsiek said the Committee had reviewed three collective bar- 
gaining agreements and was prepared to recommend approval of 
each. Without further discussion, it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED 



and further 



VOTED 



To approve the Agreement, as amended, between 
the Trustees of the University of Massachusetts 
and the American Federation of State, County and 
Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 93, Local 
2616 (Doc. T78-045) ; provided however, that no 
wage increases as specified in said Agreement 
shall become effective until the Governor has 
transferred sufficient funds to the University's 
maintenance accounts to meet the cost of the 
salary increases provided by said Agreement. 



To approve the Agreement, as amended, between 
the Trustees of the University of Massachusetts 
and the American Federation of State, County 
and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 93, 
Local 1776 (Doc. T78-046) ; provided, however, that 
no wage increases as specified in said Agreement 
shall become effective until the Governor has 
transferred sufficient funds to the University's 
maintenance accounts to meet the cost of the 
salary increases provided by said Agreement. 



To approve the Agreement, as amended, between the 
Trustees of the University of Massachusetts and 
the Service Employees International Union, AFL- 
CIO, Local 285 (Doc. T78-058) ; provided however, 
that no wage increases as specified in said Agree- 
ment shall become effective until the Governor has 
transferred sufficient funds to the University's 
maintenance accounts to meet the cost of the 
salary increases provided by said Agreement. 



The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Buildings and Grounds. Trustee Burack, reporting in the absence 
of Trustee Spiller, said the Committee had met on January 31 and 
had a number of recommendations to present to the Board. The 
first item was Renovation Plans for 100 Arlington Street 



-6- 



and further 



VOTED : 



I 



1 



1 



I 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

(Doc. T78-048) . Trustee Burack said extraordinary cooperation 
had been forthcoming from everyone at the College of Public 
and Community Service. The renovations were going forward on 
schedule and were within the budget, and it seemed that a July 1 
completion date was a real possibility. Without further discus- 
sion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve preliminary plans for the renovation 
of 100 Arlington Street as described in Doc. 
T78-048, and to authorize the President to ap- 
prove final working drawings and specifications. 

The next item, Trustee Burack said, was Campus Road 
and Parking Lot Improvements — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-049). This 
was the first phase of a two-stage process of improvement. In 
response to Trustee Romer ' s question, Mr. Littlefield said the 
plans had been discussed with the Amherst Town Planners and 
noted that some of the improvements had been requested by the 
Town. In response to questions by Trustees Crain and Kassler, 
Mr. Littlefield said that the shortfall in funds between the 
amount allocated by the state and the actual cost of the project 
would be met with monies from the Parking Reserve Funds, that 
this was in accord with the purposes of the Parking Reserve 
Funds, and that there would be no transfer of building mainte- 
nance funds. Without further discussion, it was moved, seconded 
and 

VOTED : To approve the preliminary plans for Campus Road 
and Parking Lot Improvements at the Amherst Cam- 
pus as described in Doc. T78-049 and to authorize 
the Chancellor, in consultation with the President, 
to complete the improvements in accordance with 
these plans as approved. 

At this point, Chairman Healey asked the indulgence of 
the Board to interrupt Trustee Burack 's report so that Trustee 
Breyer, who had to catch a flight, could report for the Presi- 
dential Search Committee. Trustee Breyer said the Committee was 
still on schedule and expected to present the names of candi- 
dates to the April meeting of the Board. He said the Board 
should know that his contacts with educators and others had re- 
inforced his belief that the University had an excellent reputa- 
tion across the nation. He said he wished that some members of 
the Legislature and others could hear the laudatory things said 
about the University. 

Trustee Burack then continued the report of the Build- 
ings and Grounds Committee. The next item was Goodell Building; 
Renovations — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-050). This was the first step 
in a five year renovation plan. Without further discussion, it 
was moved, seconded and 



Board 
2/1/78 

Renovation 

Plans for 

100 Arlington 

Street 

(Doc. T78-048) 



UM/Amherst — 
Campus Road 
and Parking 
Lot Improve- 
ments 
(Doc. T78-049) 



Report of 
Presidential 
Search 
Committee 



-7- 



Report of Com- 
mittee on 
Buildings and 
Grounds (con- 
tinued) 



Board 
2/1/78 

DM/ Amherst — 

Goodell Build- 
ing Renovations 
(Doc. T78-050) 

Application for 

Acquisition of 

Surplus Federal 

Property on 

Nantucket 

Island 

(Doc. T78-051) 



Columbia Sta- 
tion Bus Termi- 
nal 

FY78 Capital 
Outlay Appro- 
priations 

UM/ Boston- 
Catherine 
Forbes Clark 
Physical Edu- 
cation Building 



Report of Com- 
mittee on 
Budget and 
Finance 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED: To approve preliminary plans for the renovation 
of the Goodell Building as described in Doc. 
T78-050. 

The next item was Application for Acquisition of Sur- 
plus Federal Property on Nantucket Island (Doc. T78-051) . 
Trustee Burack said that this had to do with one of the Univer- 
sity's several field stations. At the Committee meeting the 
Trustees had expressed an interest in knowing more about all of 
these stations. The application for the property at Nantucket, 
she stressed, did not bind the Trustees to any further action. 
The property in question would provide the field station with 
badly needed living quarters for both staff and students. With- 
out further discussion, it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the submission of an application to the 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare for the 
acquisition of surplus federal property on Nantucket 
Island as described in Doc. T78-051 and to authorize 
the President to act on behalf of the University as 
provided in the formal resolution accompanying the 
application, provided that no further action be 
taken with respect to said property until after re- 
view by the Committee on Faculty and Educational 
Policy and the Committee on Budget and Finance. 

Trustee Burack concluded her report by noting that the 
Committee had discussed Columbia Station Bus Terminal: Land Ac- 
quisition and Related Improvements . This was an ongoing effort 
to improve the terminal, which was vital to the campus, as it 
was the only public transportation link between the campus and 
the city. The Committee had also received a report on the FY78 
Capital Outlay Appropriations , which all Trustees had received. 

Finally, the Committee had discussed the status of the 
Catherine Forbes Clark Physical Education Building . There was 
to be a meeting between the University Counsel and the Department 
of Administration and Finance. Trustee Kassler said that this 
meeting was to discuss the issue raised by the fact that the de- 
cision enabling the University to go ahead with the construction 
of the building did not provide a remedy for the erosion of funds 
due to inflation. The question now was whether the available 
funds would permit construction of the building as described in 
the bid documents, or whether some part of the project should be 
eliminated. He suggested that the Board be consulted prior to 
entering protracted litigation to ensure that the entire project 
was built. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Budget and Finance. Trustee Crain said that the vote on the 
first item, Amendment to University Travel Rules and Regulations 
(Doc. T78-053) , was an attempt to update the approach to amending 




I 



I 



I 



I 



< 



Amendment to 
University 
Travel Rules 
and Regulations 
(Doc. T78-053) 



FY79 Budget Re- 
quest Revision 
(Doc. T78-052) 



I 



Board 
SACHUS 2/1/78 

the University's travel regulations. Without further discussion, 
it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To establish as of February 1, 1978, the policy 
that the travel reimbursement rates for the use 
of personal cars by all University employees shall 
be the same as those set from time to time by the 
Commonwealth for all State employees , except in 
instances where such reimbursement rates are the 
subject of collective bargaining agreements. 

The next item was FY 1979 Budget Request Revision (Doc. 
T78-052) . Trustee Crain said that the proposed revision was, in 
the mind of the Committee, most advisable and would reflect the 
best estimate of the impact of state salary increases for non- 
union personnel and the best estimate of the impact of current 
collective bargaining negotiations. Without further discussion, 
it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED: To approve the amendment of the FY 1979 Maintenance 
Budget Request as set forth in Doc. T78-052. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy. Trustee Troy said the Committee 
had met on January 25 and had first discussed the history and 
status of Commonwealth Professorships . These professorships had 
been established in order to hold and attract a distinguished 
faculty by enabling the University to offer salaries above the 
state maximum. With the advent of fiscal autonomy, the title be- 
came strictly honorific. In this context, the Trustees had also 
discussed the need for more specific policies governing salary 
adjustments for former administrators. While a fairly definite 
pattern of dealing with this matter was apparent, it was felt 
by Trustees that it would be necessary to redefine and sharpen 
the rules in this area. The Committee had asked Mr. Lynton to 
study this matter and make a report and recommendations to a 
later meeting. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee also discussed the ap- jUM/Amherst — 
proval of Preliminary Graduation Lists — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78— 047 ).| Preliminary 



Report of 
| Committee on 
j Faculty and 
I Educational 

Policy 

Commonwealth 
Professorships 



Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve and ratify the Preliminary Graduation 
Lists of February 1978, UM/Amherst, as certified 
by the recorder of that campus and contained in 
Doc. T78-047. 

With the Chairman's agreement, Professor Brogan made 
the following statement to the Board: 

"I regret that my colleagues in the Massachusetts Society of 
Professors have become so dissatisfied that they have 



-9- 



Graduation 

Lists 

(Doc. T78-047) 



UM/Amherst — 
Statement by 
Faculty Repre- 
sentative 



Board 
2/1/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

resumed picketing. Members of the Society are no doubt un- 
happy, especially because of the lack of progress in con- 
tract negotiations. Indeed, I informed Chancellor Bromery 
as long ago as last summer that intransigence in negotia- 
tion was likely to have this result. But I have reason to 
believe that most even of the considerable number of people 
in the Faculty Senate who did not support MSP in its elec- 
tion as bargaining agent share the acute dissatisfaction of 
their MSP colleagues at the failure of the University's 
leadership to get us at least the 2-1/2 percent plus $400 
salary increment of the Alliance settlement. 

"This may seem a piddling amount to our top administrators 
though I doubt very much that they will reject it as an ad- 
dition to their own salaries; but it is a matter of impor- 
tance to most professors, hard pressed as they are — especi- 
ally those at lower rank — by the pressure of inflation upon 
incomes reduced over a third in purchasing power. Those 
who are approaching retirement also have reason to be seri- 
ously apprehensive because of the eroded purchasing power 
of the salary base on which their retirement income is to 
be calculated. 

"Some have been sticking with the University in spite of 
considerable temptation to leave. One young friend of mine 
at the peak of his productive life — under contract for two 
major publications at Harvard — passed up an offer of a Pro- 
fessorship in the Midwest paying $12,000 more than he makes 
here. He consulted me; and I am glad that I am not respon- 
sible for advising him to stay, though I do feel a little 
guilt for not urging him to leave, as I see how discouraging 
prospects here continue to be. However, he is one of those 
who can expect to have opportunities. In fact, he called 
me this morning and asserted he certainly would not pass up 
another such chance; he said he found it particularly dis- 
couraging that President Patterson did not refer to low 
faculty morale in his remarks to the Trustees. 

"Regrettably, a University on a declining plane will always 
tend to lose its best people. The deadwood on a faculty is 
never the object of staff raids. Most of those as old as I 
are too far along to leave, though a few outstanding schol- 
ars may; and my discipline is not currently one in high de- 
mand. It is the most employable people in the disciplines 
of highest demand who have the best chance of leaving ad- 
vantageously. Thus, I understand our losses to be particu- 
larly heavy in such academic areas as Business Administra- 
tion and Nursing. 

"I hope the members of the Board are under no illusions that 
we can hold our best staff because our salary levels are no 
worse than those in other New England state universities. 



■10- 



I 



I 



I 



1 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The academic market place is national, and we have to com- 
pete with those in economically advantaged regions. Amherst 
is a pleasant place to live, and most faculty members are 
fond of New England as a cultural milieu, too; but these 
attractions cannot long withstand a continuing erosion of 
relative salary purchasing power. 

"The difficulties we have had with governance and those 
currently occurring in contract negotiations, necessarily 
add to the malaise of the faculty. I do not myself doubt 
that these difficulties will be overcome eventually and our 
progress resumed. I am convinced that this University is 
destined eventually to be one of the top-flight public in- 
stitutions of higher education in the country. However, 
"eventually" is too remote for those approaching retirement 
and it is very unlikely that it will come soon enough to 
justify our best young people's loyalty to the University. 
Ten, or even twenty years is a short time in the life of a 
University, but it is a major part of an academic career." 

Chairman Healey asked if any Trustees wished to comment. 
None did. He then noted that there was a personnel action to be 
dealt with. President Patterson said the action was in line with 
the appointment of Chancellor Van Ummersen at UM/ Bos ton. Without 
discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as set forth in 
Trustee Document T78-056. 

Chairman Healey said there were a few other items to be 
noted. Trustee Burack had volunteered to serve on the Presiden- 
tial Search Committee and the search for a volunteer to serve as 
the delegate to the Board of Higher Education was still active. 
Lastly, Trustee Burack had agreed to chair a committee which 
would examine the operation of the business of the Board, as well 
as the interrelationships of the policy making function of the 
Board and the administrative functions of the University. Four 
volunteers to serve on the committee were being sought. 

There was no further business to come before the Board 
and the meeting adjourned at 3:25 p.m. 



Board 
2/1/78 



UM/Boston — 

Personnel 

Action 

(Doc. T78-056) 




UJbJ^ 



Dorothy Eiqhel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board 
of Trustees 



-11- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



Not Used. 



I 



1 



ATTENDANCE 



1 



■ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

March 1, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 

Chancellor's Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Boston 

Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey, President Patterson; 
Trustees Baker, Batiste, Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Kassler, 
Krumsiek, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Popko , Robertson, Sawtelle and 
Shearer; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Ms. Pinck repre- 
senting Trustee Dukakis; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop ; 
Treasurer Brand, Assistant Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Trustees : Trustees Fielding, Morgenthau, Okin, Romer, 
Spiller and Troy 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Ms. Robin- 
son, Vice President for Planning 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 



Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. McBee, Vice Chancellor for Ad- 
ministration and Finance; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for Stu- 
dent Affairs; Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/ Bos ton: Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 



for Administration and Finance; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Tubbs , Vice Chancellor for Stu- 
dent Affairs 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance 

The meeting came to order at 2:20 p.m. Chairman Healey Approval of 



noted that there was an error in the attendance list of the Min- 
utes of the last Board meeting which would be corrected. He 
asked if there were any other errors or omissions. There were 
none, and it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the February 1, 1978, 
meeting of the Board of Trustees. 

Chairman Healey announced the good news that Trustee 
Shearer had been reappointed. He then introduced two new 
Trustees, Sr. Kathleen Popko and Mr. Simon Sawtelle. The announce 
ment and the introductions each inspired a round of applause. 



Trustees Baker and Batiste, Chairman Healey continued, 
were attending their last meeting as members of the Board. He 
recalled that there had been no opposition from the Board when 
the Legislature suggested that students serve as Trustees. Stu- 
dent Trustees over the years had, by their high standards and 



Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



Introduction of 
New Trustees 



Recognition of 
Outgoing Stu- 
dent Trustees 



Board 
3/1/78 



Recognition of 
Vice President 
for Planning, 
Nan Robinson 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

intelligent participation, demonstrated the wisdom of the Board's 
action. Pinky Batiste and Judy Baker had carried on this tradi- 
tion in fine style. Trustee Robertson said he wished to thank 
them for their maturity and thoughtful input into the Board's de- 
liberations. Trustees Baker and Batiste were given a round of 
applause, as was Mr. James 0' Sullivan, Trustee Baker's successor. 

Chairman Healey said a further goodbye was necessary, 
as Nan Robinson was leaving her post as Vice President for Plan- 
ning to become Deputy Commissioner for Higher Education for the 
State of Connecticut. He said that Nan was one of the ablest 
individuals he had ever worked with in the University, or in any 
business or professional capacity. He said he spoke for the 
Board in wishing her well. 

Speaking for the record, President Patterson recalled 
that Nan had joined the University in 1970, first as staff asso- 
ciate and then as Assistant to the President. The adoption by 
this Board of Doc. T73-098, the Governance Document, in April, 
1973, clarified the responsibility of University leadership for 
developing and maintaining a planning framework for the institu- 
tion, and shortly thereafter, in July 1973, President Wood ap- 
pointed Nan Robinson as Vice President for Planning. 

Her responsibilities and her achievements in this posi- 
tion have been wide ranging and impressive. In close collabora- 
tion with the Trustee Committee on Buildings and Grounds, she has 
overseen the physical development of the three campuses during 
the years of her service. Whether it was landscaping at Worces- 
ter, building renovations at Amherst, or transportation and road- 
way patterns at Boston, the University and this Board have looked 
to Nan for comprehensive, articulate and realistic advice on 
progress and development in an era of increasing constraints. 

Similarly, the Committee on Long-Range Planning looked 
to Nan Robinson for professional guidance and support as it de- 
veloped a planning process for the University, looking towards a 
realistic, yet imaginative program for its future. 

The years in which Nan has been with the University 
have not been easy ones for anyone, he said. Expectations for 
the future size of the University had been revised. New exter- 
nal constraints had been faced — from the fiscal to the environ- 
mental — and the role of a major public university, what it should 
be and should seek to do, had had to be fundamentally rethought. 
Nan was the principal author of the 1973 report to this Board on 
"New Realities and New Directions" for the University, he said, 
and she has been deeply and vigorously involved both in assessing 
new realities and charting new directions. Whether the issue was 
enrollment planning or capital outlay requests, Nan Robinson had 
given this Board her professional counsel, wisdom and insight 
very generously. 



-2- 



I 



H 



I 



I 



I 



I 



Board 
3/1/78 

While accomplishing these things at the University, 
Mrs. Robinson had also served actively in her own profession 
nationally through the Society for College and University Plan- 
ning and other organizations, and had played an active part in 
all of these. 

She leaves us now, he said, for a new challenge. The 
newly established Connecticut Board of Higher Education has 
broad budgetary powers and other responsibility and authority. 
As the Board's first Deputy Commissioner, he said, Nan Robinson 
will, of course, be critical to its success. 

President Patterson concluded by saying: "I know that 
all members of the Central Administration and the leadership of 
the Campuses who have worked with Nan over the years join me in 
wishing her well in her new duties, and in expressing our deep 
gratitude for all she has done for the University." The Trustees 
responded with an ovation. 

Chairman Healey said the membership of the Ad Hoc Com- • Membership of Ad 
mittee on Board Operations and Organization was now complete. As Hoc Committee on 
had been previously announced, Trustee Burack would serve as 
Chairman, Mr. Callahan and Trustees Crain, McNeil and Robertson 
had agreed to serve on the committee. He asked for Board approval 
of the membership committee. This was given. Trustee Burack 
said the Board approval was particularly fortuitous as the com- 
mittee had just held its first meeting. All committee members 
had volunteered to serve. The committee would attempt to clarify 
the role and functions of various aspects of the work of the 
Board, and would consult with the people directly responsible to 
the Board in the discharge of its statutory duties and responsi- 
bilities. Further, the committee would solicit the view of in- 
dividual Trustees on such things as standing committees, fre- 
quency of meetings, committee interrelationships, relationships 
of Trustees and staff, and the general operations of the Board. 



Board Operations 
and Organization 



The meeting then turned to the Presidential Agenda. 
President Patterson said the budget hearings for the University 
were now scheduled for the morning of March 21. Preparations 
for the hearings were now underway with the help of the Chancel- 
lors and the Central Administration staff. The case for the 
University would be put forth as strongly as possible. He said 
he would report on the hearings at the April meeting of the Board, 

The Catherine Forbes Clark Physical Education Building, 
the President continued, had been approved for construction, and 
a basic contract had been awarded. Construction was expected to 
begin shortly. In the matter of the Public Archives, Ms. Robin- 
son had continued the effort to locate the building on the Harbor 
Campus. Conversations with Mr. Guzzi, Secretary of the Common- 
wealth, were continuing. 



President's 
I Remarks 



-3- 



Board 
3/1/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

President Patterson noted that as of March 1, the organ- 
ization of the Central Administration had been altered to take 
into account shifts in personnel over the past six weeks. The 
organization would now be based on Mr. Kaludis , Vice President 
for Management, and Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Af- 
fairs. Staff would report to the Vice Presidents who, in turn, 
would work closely with him in a management team. 

In assessing the impact of the blizzard, the President 
said the Boston Campus was affected the most, followed by 
Worcester, then Amherst. Only the Boston Campus was eligible for 
federal assistance, and Secretary Parks had recommended that the 
University be allocated almost $68,000 for storm caused damage. 
The law did not provide for reimbursement for snow removal. The 
staff at all campuses had responded very well, particularly the 
people at Worcester who kept the Hospital functioning throughout 
the storm. 



I 



UM/Amherst — 
Chancellor' s 
Comments 



President Patterson then reminded the Trustees of the 
decision to seek a meeting with the Senate Ways and Means Com- 
mittee in order to discuss the legislatively mandated payback by 
students at the Medical School. The meeting had been held on 
February 27 with Senators Kelly, Saltonstall and Foley. It was, 
all in all, a good discussion. Several matters were raised which 
would require further consideration by the Board. It was now 
clear that the intent of the Committee was serious indeed and the 
Senators looked to the Trustees 1 leadership in responding to the 
requirement. A further report on this subject would be brought 
to the Board later. 

President Patterson concluded by noting that salary ad- 
justments for nonunion personnel as mandated by the Legislature 
and approved by the Board on January 11, would be reflected in 
the March 3 payroll. He then asked the Chancellors for their 
comments. 

Chancellor Bromery said that on January 12, after 
several weeks of negotiations and discussions, UM/Amherst, with 
the approval of the President and University Counsel, signed a 
conciliation agreement with the Department of Health, Education 
and Welfare. Under the terms of the agreement the campus was re- 
quired to provide HEW with a tremendous amount of statistical 
data concerning affirmative action. The first batch of data had 
been submitted on schedule and it was expected that future data 
would also be sent on time. 

UM/Amherst had asked the Civil Defense Agency for per- 
mission to re-open shortly after the blizzard stopped. This was 
granted and the campus lost only one day of operation. Chancel- 
lor Bromery commended the staff for their efforts after the storm 
in clearing the campus so quickly. 



•4- 



I 



I 



UM/ Boston — 
Chancellor' s 
Comments 



Board 
3/1/78 

Chancellor Bromery concluded by saying that the second 
semester Chancellor's Lecture would be delivered on March 7, 
Richard Stein, Commonwealth Professor of Chemistry and Director 
of the Polymer Research Institute at Amherst would lecture on 
Large Molecules. Those having no knowledge of large molecules 
would be enlightened, those with such knowledge would gain 
greater insight. The polymer science faculty at Amherst, he 
said, was one of the best in the world. He urged all to attend. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that, despite reports to 
the contrary, UM/Boston had survived the blizzard. The staff had 
worked extremely hard in clearing the campus. One thing that 
hampered reopening was the fact that the Red Line, the only pub- 
lic transportation link between the campus and the Boston area, 
was shut down for a week. As a result, the spring term had been 
rescheduled in order to make up for lost class time. 

Work was now on-going in two areas, Chancellor Van 
Ummersen continued. An analysis of all costs of programs was be- 
ing developed. From this a simulation model would be devised, 
enabling the campus to project the costs of increased enrollment 
for existing programs and for new programs. 

The second area was a planned arts festival, which 
would take place May 5 through May 7. Joan Hobson, who directed 
the 1978 First Night Celebration for the city of Boston, had 
agreed to direct the festival. She was now working with a com- 
munity/campus planning committee. It was hoped that artists from 
the community would participate along with artists from the cam- 
pus. A diverse program would be offered, including the visual 
arts, music, theater and dance. The festival was designed to 
allow people in the area to visit the campus, thus increasing the 
visibility of the campus in the community. 

Chancellor Bulger said the Trustees would soon be in- iUM/Worcester- 
volved in matters relating to the residency program at the Medi- Chancellor's 
cal Center; therefore, it might be helpful if they were given Comments 
some general information about residency and residents. Residents, 
he said, were graduates of medical schools who were in training, 
usually for a period of from three to four years. In the con- 
tinuing debate concerning specialists vs. primary care physicians 
the consensus was that the United States had too many of the 
former and too few of the latter. The trend in medical schools 
now was to correct this imbalance. When this issue was first 
raised, roughly 60 percent of the graduates of United States 
medical schools took their residencies as specialists, the rest 
as primary care physicians. However, at Worcester, the emphasis 
had always been on primary care — from 60 to 70 percent of the 
Worcester graduates had taken primary care residencies. 

The intent of the Medical Center, Chancellor Bulger 
continued, was to have 100 first year residency slots, some at 



-5- 



Board 
3/1/78 



Resolution of 
Thanks and Ap- 
preciation to 
Trustee Gordon 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the Teaching Hospital and others at strategically located hos- 
pitals throughout the state. This would address the social and 
political issue of graduates of UM/Worcester who took their resi- 
dencies in other states and, as is usual, decided to practice in 
! the state where the residency was completed. With the 100 first 
| year residency slots in place, the Commonwealth would gain a num- 
ber of physicians equal to the size of each year's graduating 
class at Worcester. 

Another matter to be touched on, the Chancellor con- 
tinued, was that of the cost of the programs. Who paid the resi- 
dents? Confusion in this matter stemmed partly from uncertainty 
as to whether the residents were students or employees. A grow- 
ing practice was to assign the residents to the budget of the 
hospital, where costs were chargeable and reimbursable. At 
Worcester, since the Medical School preceded the Hospital, resi- 
dency costs had to date been paid by the School. 

Chancellor Bulger concluded by noting that the seeming 
contradiction at Worcester of a highly specialized hospital at- 
tached to a community practice oriented medical school was more 
apparent than real. There was a growing perception that educat- 
ing primary care physicians in an environment of specialists 
formed valuable links between the participants. 

This concluded the Presidential Agenda. Chairman Heale^ 
then recognized Trustee Robertson who said he wished to move the 
following resolution: 



I 



RESOLVED : 



Robert Gordon brought to the Board of Trustees 
the special perspective and dedication of an 
alumnus of this University. He was an under- 
graduate when Massachusetts State College be- 
came the University of Massachusetts, and he 
was a Trustee throughout the turbulent and 
difficult years when a one-campus university 
became a three-campus system. 

In his fourteen years as a Trustee, Bob Gordon 
was involved in virtually every aspect of the 
Board's responsibilities — from student affairs 
to finances, from buildings and grounds to 
labor relations. He served as Chairman of the 
Committee on Government and University Relations, 
and the Committee on Finance. Over the years, 
he served on the Executive Committee and on the 
Committees on Budget, Budget and Finance, Build- 
ings and Grounds, Student Activities, Municipal 
Services, and Health Affairs. He also served 
with distinction as the Trustee delegate to the 
Board of Higher Education and as the Trustee 
representative to the Alumni Advisory Council. 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

But the roster of his assignments and responsi- 
bilities does not truly tell the measure of Bob 
Gordon's service to this Board, He was a Trustee 
who knew this University well, who deeply cared 
about it, and who never hesitated to express his 
concerns and to take a stand he believed in. 

As an active President of the Alumni Association 
and as a dedicated Trustee, Robert Gordon has 
served his University with unselfish zeal. We 
will miss him as a member of this Board, but we 
expect that Bob Gordon will continue to devote 
his considerable energies and dedication to his 
University, and we look forward to long con- 
tinued association and friendship. 

The resolution was adopted unanimously. 

The Chairman then called for the report of the Committee 
on Budget and Finance. Trustee Crain said that he had met with 
Mr. Kaludis and Ms. Hanson after receiving the documentation on 
the Mid-year Budget Review . The Committee met on February 28 with! 

I 

Central Administration staff and the Chancellors and their staffs. > 
Following discussion, it was agreed that an analysis of advert is- | 
ing expenses would be available for the Committee's May meeting. 
Without further discussion it was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the subsidiary account transfers as de- 
tailed in Doc. T78-060. 

Chairman Crain concluded by noting that a reference to 
the Institute for Governmental Services and the Title XX Agreement 
had caused the Trustees to ask that an in-depth study of the mat- 
ter be presented to the March 22 meeting of the Committee. While 
the project was progressing, the reference had raised concern and 
it was agreed that the matter would be discussed fully. He urged 
interested Trustees to attend the meeting and asked that Trustees 
who so requested be given documentation on Title XX. 

At Chairman Healey's request, Trustee Burack reported 
for the Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy. The Commit- 
tee had met and discussed Acceptance of Invitation to UM/Boston 
to Join Boston Library Consortium (Doc. T78-057). She reminded 



< 



Board 
3/1/78 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Budget 
and Finance 

Mid-year Budget 
Review Fund 
Transfers 
(Doc. T78-060) 



the Trustees that when the Board approved Amherst's request to be- 
come a member of the Consortium, it was with the understanding 
that Boston would be considered for membership once the Consortium 
was formed. 

President Patterson said that the membership of the Con- 
sortium was an impressive one and that the invitation reflected 
the growth of the academic position of the Boston Campus in the 
area. Members included Boston College, the Boston Public Library, 



-7- 



Report of Com- 
mittee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 

UM-Boston — 
Acceptance of 
Invitation to 
Join Library 
Consortium 
(Doc. T78-057) 



Board 
3/1/78 



Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Boston University, M.I.T., Tufts, UM/Amherst, and Wellesley Col- 
jlege. Associate members were UM/Worcester and the Massachusetts 
State Library. UM/Boston was to be congratulated. There was no 
further discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED ; To accept the invitation that the Library of the 

Boston Campus become a member of the Boston Library 
Consortium. 

Chairman Healey said the Board would go into executive 
session to discuss the reports of the Presidential Search Com- 
mittee and the Ad Hoc Committee on Labor Relations and a person- 
nel matter. The Board would meet in open session afterwards. 
At 3:01 p.m., without discussion, it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED : 



To enter executive session. 



Trustees Baker, Batiste, Burack, Crain, Healey, Kassler, 
Krumsiek, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Patterson, Popko, Robertson, 
Sawtelle and Shearer voted for the motion, as did representatives 
Callahan, Pinck, Kaplan and Barrus . Trustees Breyer and Dennis 
were not present when the vote was taken. Trustees Fielding, 
Morgenthau, Spiller and Troy were absent. 

At 5:10 p.m., it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To end the executive session. 

Report of Com- Chairman Healey called for the report of the Committee 

mittee on Audits on Audits. Trustee Dennis said that the Committee met on Febru- 
ary 3 to discuss three items — the post of Director of Auditing, 
the Audit of the University Hospital for FY 1978, and the FY 1976 
Audits of UM/Amherst Auxiliaries. 

In the discussion on the Director of Auditing, Trustee 
Dennis continued, the Committee was told that the position was be- 
ing advertised. Also, it was agreed that the Director of Audit- 
ing would report to the Vice President for Management, and the 
home base of the post would be on the Worcester campus. This site 
was chosen because it was geographically central and it was pro- 
jected that auditing requirements at the Medical Center would, in 
time, be greater than those of either Boston or Amherst. 

Trustee Dennis said that in the discussion of the FY 197£ 
audit of the University Hospital it had been suggested that ef- 
forts be made to solicit bids from minority and small firms as 
well as large firms in the auditor selection process. In the 
matter of the completed audits, he said the Committee would re- 
view all of these and would report to the Board. In response to 
Trustee Burack' s question, Trustee Dennis said 47 applications 
had been received in response to the ad for the Director of Audit- 
ing, several from likely candidates. 



-8- 



> 



1 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey called for the report of the Ad Hoc 
Committee on Labor Relations. Trustee Krumsiek said the Commit- 
tee had unanimously agreed to recommend to the Board a Statement 
on Trustee Policy. Without discussion, it was moved, seconded 
and 

VOTED : The Commonwealth, via Chapter 75 of the General 

Laws and other legislation, has historically given 
both the authority to, and the responsibility for, 
determining policy matters and the governing of the 
University of Massachusetts to its Board of Trustees. 
Prospectively, the Board intends to retain and fully 
exercise, subject only to legislative directives to 
the contrary, that authority and responsibility 
which has been delegated to it. Implicit in both 
the spirit and the letter of the legislative charge 
to the Board is the Board's primary responsibility 
for providing opportunities for quality public 
higher education to all who are enrolled in the 
program offerings of the University of Massachusetts 
at all of its campuses. 

The Board of Trustees intends to discharge its re- 
sponsibility and implement its authority in a manner 
which will preserve the academic integrity of the 
University. It is essential that any final collec- 
tive bargaining agreement reached by the Union rep- 
resenting the University's faculty and the Board of 
Trustees contain appropriate and adequate contractual 
language consistent with these requirements. 

Within the above parameters the Board hereby charges 
its negotiators with responsibility for continuing 
to represent the Board of Trustees in collective 
bargaining with the authorized representatives of 
its faculty and directs its bargaining agents to con- 
tinue bargaining in good faith with such representa- 
tives. To the extent possible, the Board desires 
that all matters appropriate for collective bargain- 
ing be expeditiously resolved to the mutual satis- 
faction of the parties. 

There was no further business to come before the Board, 
and the meeting was adjourned at 5:15 p.m. 



I 




Dorothy Ei«hel 

Assistant Secretary of the University 



-9- 



Board 
3/1/78 

Report of Ad 
Hoc Committee 
on Labor Re- 
lations 



Policy State- 
ment with re- 
gard to Col- 
lective Bar- 
gaining 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



P 



NOT USED 



! 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 



April 5, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 
Chancellor's Conference Room 
Administration Building 
Harbor Campus 
University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Patterson 
Trustees Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, 
McNeil, McNulty, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle, Spiller 
and Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Ms. Pinck 
representing Trustee Dukakis; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee 
Winthrop ; Treasurer Brand; Ms. Eichel, Assistant Secretary; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Trustees Absent : Trustees Fielding, Morgenthau, Okin, Romer 
and Shearer 

Central Administration : Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 
ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance; Professor Martin, Faculty 
Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance; Dr. Goodman, Provost; Professor 
Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting came to order at 2:06 p.m. Chairman Healey 
said the Board would immediately go into executive session in 
order to discuss collective bargaining and personnel matters. 
The Board would reconvene in open session. At 2:08 p.m. without 
discussion it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED: 



To enter executive session. 



Trustees Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, 
McNeil, McNulty, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle, Spiller 
and Troy voted for the motion, as did Chairman Healey, President 
Patterson, Mr. Barrus, Mr. Callahan, and Ms. Pinck. Trustees 
Fielding, Morgenthau, Okin and Shearer were absent. 



Executive 
Session 



Board 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 

Amendment to 
Trustee 
By-Laws 
(Doc. T76-051 
B78) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

At 4:38 p.m. the Board reconvened in open session. 
Chairman Healey asked if there were any additions or changes to 
the minutes of the last meeting. There were none and it was 
moved, seconded and 



VOTED : To approve the minutes of the March 1, 
meeting of the Board of Trustees. 



1978 



Chairman Healey then called for a vote on Amendment to 
Trustee By-Laws (Doc. T76-051 B78) . The amendment was designed 



to bring the By-laws into conformity with the changes in the open 
meeting law which had been passed by the Legislature and signed 
by the Governor. There was no discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : That the By-Laws of the Board of Trustees 

(Doc. T78-051 B78) be amended as of April 13, 
1978, the effective date of Chapter 991 of 
the Acts of 1977, as follows: 

(1) By striking out the numeral "13" in the 
second paragraph of Section 2 of Article 
I and inserting in place thereof "12". 

(2) By striking out paragraphs (a) through 
(i) inclusive of Section 6 of Article II 
and inserting in place thereof the 
following: 

"(a) To discuss the reputation and character, 
physical condition or mental health 
rather than the professional competence 
of an individual. An open meeting shall 
be held if the individual involved re- 
quests in writing that the meeting be open, 

(b) To consider the discipline or dismissal 
of, or to hear complaints or charges 
brought against, an officer, employee, 
or individual. An open meeting shall 
be held if the individual involved re- 
quests in writing that the meeting be open. 

(c) To discuss strategy with respect to col- 
lective bargaining or litigation if an 
open meeting may have a detrimental impact 
on the bargaining or litigating position 
of the University. 

(d) To discuss the deployment of security per- 
sonnel or devices. 

(e) To consider allegations of criminal mis- 
conduct . 



I 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



I 



Board 
4/5/78 



I 



(f ) To consider the purchase, exchange, lease 
or value of real property, if such dis- 
cussions may have a detrimental effect on 
the negotiating position of the University 
and a person, firm or corporation. 

(g) To comply with the provisions of any general 
or special law or federal grant-in-aid 
requirements . 

(h) To consider the award of honorary degrees. 

(i) To consider the award of tenure to a member 
of the faculty." 

(3) By inserting before the word "Agriculture" in 
Section 3 of Article III the words "Food and." 

(4) By striking out the last sentence in the third 
paragraph of Section 4 of Article III. 

Chairman Healey then noted that Trustee Popko had askec 
to serve on the Committees on Long-Range Planning and Faculty 
and Educational Policy. Trustee Sawtelle had asked to serve on 
the Committees on Long-Range Planning and Buildings and Grounds 
and had agreed to serve as Delegate to the Board of Higher 
Education. He asked if there were any objections to these 
assignments. There were none. He then called for the 
President's comments. 

President Patterson said that in view of the lateness 
of the hour he would report only that the hearings of the 
University's budget request before the House Ways and Means 
Committee had been very useful. This matter would be pursued 
in further contacts with House members. President Patterson 
said the Chancellors' comments would be held over until the 
next meeting. 

Chairman Healey said that he wished to clear up a mis- 
understanding which had arisen around a letter dated March 13, 
1978, he had received from Chancellor Bromery. The letter had 
caused a kind of furor on the Amherst campus because of a belief 
that information was being withheld. He said that when he had 
received the letter he had asked that copies be sent to all the 
Trustees and this had been done. The letter concerned the per- 
sonal plans of the Chancellor and, in his opinion, the Chancel- 
lor should have been the one to release it. However, the infor- 
mation of the letter was in the public domain and, if Chancellor 
Bromery did not release the letter, he, as Chairman of the Board 
would have them inserted in the minutes of this meeting as well 
as his reply to Dr. Bromery 's letter. 



•3- 



Trustee 

Committee 

Assignments 



Presidential 
Agenda 



Chancellor 
Bromery 's 
Resignation 



Board 
4/5/78 



Letter of 
Resignation 






Chairman 
Healey ' s 
Response 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Chancellor Bromery's letter reads as follows: 



Dear Chairman Healey 



March 13, 1978 



I feel that it is appropriate and timely for me to 
indicate to you and the Board of Trustees with as much lead 
time as possible my future plans vis-a-vis my tenure as Chancel- 
lor of the Amherst campus which began for me on October 7, 1971 

I feel that the timing of this decision is important 
in order to remove any potential complications during the 
presidential search and to clear up in advance any possible 
questions or inferences following the completion of that 
presidential search and final Board selection. 

At the present time, it is my intention to resign as 
Chancellor of the Amherst campus of the University of Massachu- 
setts on June 30, 1979. I have previously indicated to the 
Presidential Search Committee that I am willing to be considerec. 
as a candidate for the presidency. If I am recommended by the 
Search Committee and selected by the Board of Trustees as the 
next president of the University of Massachusetts and I agree 
to accept that position, it would, of course, affect my 
June 30, 1979 resignation date as Chancellor. If, however, 
another individual is recommended by the Search Committee and 
selected by the Board of Trustees for the presidency of the 
University of Massachusetts, I would then resign from the campus 
Chancellorship on a date mutually acceptable to the new incoming 
President and the Board of Trustees, however, under the present 
circumstances that date should be no later than June 30, 1979. 

Sincerely, 



Randolph W. Bromery 
Chancellor 



Chairman Healey responded as follows 
Dear Chancellor Bromery: 



March 17, 1978 



Thank you for your letter concerning your personal 
plans for the future. I have asked Dorothy Eichel to send a 
copy to each member of the Board of Trustees. 

This information will be most helpful to the Board 
as it goes forward with the process of selecting the next 
President of the University of Massachusetts. And may I say, 
Bill, that your letter well reflects the continuing concern 
which you have always had for the best interests of the 
University. 

Yours sincerely, 

Joseph P. Healey 



-4- 



I 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Long- Range Planning . Trustee Marks said the Committee had 
reconvened on March 19, after a hiatus lasting several months. 
The major purpose of the meeting was to determine what problems 
faced the Committee and how best to tackle them, and to discuss 
the Committee's responsibilities. 

The Committee had agreed to adopt a pragmatic approach 
in dealing with several major policy problems that required im- 
mediate attention. That is, the Committee would attack specific 
policy problems that hamper the University's ability to operate 
and which the Board had not acted on for one reason or another. 
After these problems have been resolved, the Committee would 
deal with more comprehensive matters. 

The first two problems to be attacked would be the 
combined missions/status of UM/Boston, and, at the request of 
Chairman Healey, the Committee would have primary responsibility 
for matters having to do with the reorganization of public 
higher education. Chairman Healey said he thought this was 
important for the Trustees to understand. The Long-Range Plan- ! 
ning Committee seemed the logical choice to deal with this 
issue. The Trustees agreed with this assessment. 

Lastly, Trustee Marks continued, The Committee heard 
a presentation by a delegation from the Students United for 
Public Education. The group was concerned with public education 
in all its aspects including its future. The group had followed 
all the proper procedures in requesting an appearance before 
the Committee. 

The delegation had made an excellent presentation of 
their general concerns, many of which were parallel to those of 
the members of the Long-Range Planning Committee. The present- 
ation had been moderate, it offered much food for thought, and 
reflected broad student input. SUPE had now asked that they be 
allowed to make a similar controlled presentation to the full 
Board. It was the unanimous recommendation of the Committee 
that the group be allowed to make a half hour presentation at 
the May 3, 1978 meeting of the Board. The presentation to be 
conducted under the provisions of Procedures Governing Appear- 
ances Before the Board. 

In the ensuing discussion the Trustees were told that 
one half hour was the minimum time necessary; that SUPE wished 
the Board to be aware of the concerns of the students, not to 
take any action; that the presentation had been a responsible 
one; and that the Board should be aware of its priorities and 
the number of complex issues that were already on the Board's 
unfinished agenda. It was then moved, seconded and 



-5- 



Board 
4/5/78 



Report of 
Committee on 
Long-Range 
Planning 



Students 
United for 
Public 
Education 



Board 
4/5/78 



Report of 
Committee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 



Medical 
Technology 
Program 
Transfer 
(Doc. T78-061) 

Award of 
Degree — 
Leslie 
Edelhoch 



Report on 
Committee of 
Buildings 
and Grounds 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



VOTED : To allow the Students United for Public 
Education to make a presentation to the 
May 3, 1978 meeting of the Board of Trustees, 
it being understood that the presentation 
will last no longer than one half hour and 
that it will conform to the Procedures Gover- 
ning Appearances Before the Board of Trustees 
(Doc. T73-071). 

The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy . In the brief discussion on 
Transfer of Medical Technology Pr ogram — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-061) 
it was pointed out that students choosing the five year program 
would earn two bachelor's degrees, one in Medical Technology 
and one in Microbiology and would have a greater number of career 
options. Students who wished to earn a degree in Medical 
Technology in four years could be accommodated at the several 
programs offered at the State Colleges. In answer to Trustee 
Burack's question Trustee Troy said it was the judgement at 
Amherst that the changes in the program would not have to be 
approved by the Board of Higher Education. Trustee Burack said 
the B.H.E. would probably disagree. It was then moved, seconded 
and 



VOTED : To approve the transfer of the Program in 

Medical Technology from the School of Health 
Sciences to the Department of Microbiology, 
UM/Amherst, as described in Doc. T78-061. 

Trustee Troy said the next item had to had- to do with Leslie 
Edelhoch, a graduate student in Sociology at Amherst who had 
completed all the requirements for the Master's degree. Ms. 
Edelhoch was terminally ill and it was possible that within a 
short time she would be unable to appreciate the University's 
recognition of her academic achievement. Without discussion it 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To award the degree of Master of Arts in 

Sociology to Leslie Edelhoch and to authorize 
the Chancellor of UM/Amherst or his designee 
to confer the degree immediately. 

Trustee Troy concluded by noting that the Committee 
had also discussed a possible tuition surcharge in the New 
England Regional Students Program, and had heard reports of the 
Institute for Learning and Teaching and on summer school and 
continuing education activities at UM/Boston. These he would 
report on more fully at the next Board meeting. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Buildings and Grounds . Trustee Spiller said that at the last 
meeting of the Committee several problem areas had been discus- 
sed at length, relating to the construction of University 



-6- 



! 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



buildings. The Trustees should, if they wished, read the min- 
utes of the meeting. There was an action concerning the Locatio 



of State Archives at Harbor Campus — UM/Boston to be dealt with. 
There were two possible sites at the Harbor Campus under con- 
sideration, however the proposed vote did not deal with the 
specific site. The vote would simply authorize the President 
to inform the Secretary of the State of the intent of the 
University to convey a parcel of land to the Commonwealth. The 
Kennedy Library people had some thoughts on which of the two 
sites should be conveyed to the State Archives, the Committee 
on Buildings and Grounds had some quite different thoughts. The 
Secretary of State's ideas on this were in line with those of 
the Committee. There was no further discussion and it was 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the President to transmit to 

Secretary of State Paul Guzzi a letter stating 
the University's intent to convey a parcel of 
land located North of the North perimeter road 
of the Harbor Campus to the Commonwealth. This 
parcel of land is to serve as the site for the 
construction of a State Archives Building. 

Conveyance of this land will be subject to 
the terms of an agreement between the Secretary 
of State and the University as to the specific 
location of the land and buildings thereon and 
such other restrictions and easements as may 
be required for compatible joint use of access 
and utilities. 

Trustee Spiller concluded by noting that the ground 
breaking ceremony for the Catherine Forbes Clark Physical 
Education Building would take place on Tuesday, April 25. 
Trustee Burack said that she had become aware that students of 
the College of Public and Community Service and of the College 
of Professional Studies did not feel that they received much in 
the way of service for the money they paid as an athletic fee. 
She had alerted the Central Administration to this matter and 
had urged that the students at these colleges be particularly 
invited to attend the ground breaking so that they would know 
that the Clark facility was to be for them as well as the 
students in the College of Arts and Sciences. 

Trustee Dennis then gave the Report of the Committee 
on Audits. He referred the Trustees to the minutes of the last 
meeting which covered the meeting in some detail. Basically 
the Committee had dealt with three items. First was the inven- 
tory of completed audits which had been compiled by the staff; 
then the proposed audit of the Teaching Hospital, including the 
group Practice; followed by a report of the search for a 
Director of Audits. 



Board 
4/5/78 



Site for 

State 

Archives 



-7- 



Ground 

Breaking 

Ceremony 



Report of 
The Committee 
on Audits 



Board 
4/5/78 







tn 



Report of the 
Committee on 
Student 
Affairs 

Residence 
Halls and 
Dining Common 
Requirements 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



In terms of the inventory of audits, the Committee was 
now establishing a priority list for reviewing each audit. 
While the review would include both internal and external audit 
emphasis would be placed on the latter. 

At the meeting, most of the discussion had been on 
the audit of the Teaching Hospital and Group Practice. This 
would be the first proposal for an audit A which the Audit Commit- 
tee would be involved. Every effort was being made to see that 
it was done properly as it would set a number of precedents for 
future audits. 

In the course of the meeting the matter of the report- 
ing structure for external auditors had come up a number of 
times. He noted that he had made several strong statements, 
which were recorded in the minutes, to make it clear that ex- 
ternal auditors reported to the Trustees, not to the Central 
or Campus administrations. 

Trustee Dennis concluded by noting that the field of 
candidates for the position of Director of Audits had been nar- 
rowed to two and the search would probably be concluded within 
a month. ' 

The meeting then turned to the Report of the Committee 
on Student Affairs . Trustee Kassler said the Committee had con- 
sidered three votes relating to the residence halls and dining 
commons at Amherst. It had been discovered that a Board vote 
of June 4, 1975 requiring undergraduates to live in the residence 
halls and pay dining common fees had not been extended for the 
1977-78 academic year. The first two votes would rectify this 
oversight. The third vote stated that the extensions of these 
requirements were not intended to be an expression of Board 
policy for future years and directed the Committee and the ' 
administration to review the policies underlying the require- 
ments. Trustee Kassler noted that this had all came about 
because both Trustees Baker and Batiste felt that these require- 
ments were highly questionable and should be reviewed and, if 
appropriate, a new policy be adopted. There was no discussion 
and it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED : To extend for one year, beginning September 1, 

1977, the provisions of the vote of June 4, 1975, 
with respect to the use of dining commons by 
undergraduate students at the University of 
Massachusetts at Amherst. 

and further, 

VOTED : To extend for one year, beginning September 1, 

1977, the provisions of the vote of June 4, 1975, 
with respect to on-campus residency of undergraduate 
students at the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst. 



■8- 



I 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



and further, 



VOTED: 



Further, that these limited extensions not be 
intended as an expression of Board Policy for 
future years, and to direct the Administration 
and the Committee on Student Affairs to under- 
take immediately a review of the policies under- 
lying these votes and to make appropriate recom- 
mendations to the Board for the 1978-1979 academic 
year. 



Trustee Kassler said that the Committee had discussed 
child care at Boston and Amherst and a proposed child care centei 
at Worcester. While the centers at Amherst and Boston were res- 
tricted to the children of students, the proposed center at 
Worcester would be for the children of students, faculty and 
staff, and to certain special needs students. Because the Medi- 
cal School had so few students, a child care center restricted 
to their children would not be viable. Additionally, the pro- 
posed center would serve as a teaching, training and learning 
model for the Medical Center and the community. The Student 
Affairs Committee had recommended the establishment of the centei 
to the Committee on Budget and Finance. 



There were two important things related to the centers 
at Amherst and Boston that the Trustees should be aware of, 
Trustee Kassler continued. One was that there were waiting lists 
for the children of students at both campuses. The other was 
that the University had yet to make a clear and definitive 
commitment to either program through the provision of permanent 
positions for staff. This lack led to constant staff turnovers. 
Staff had again asked for Trustee support in solving this problerji. 

Trustee Crain then gave the Report of the Committee on 



Budget and Finance . He said the Committee had discussed the 
proposed child care center at Worcester at great length. Commit-- 
tee members and other Trustees had expressed concern that the 
facility and therefore University funds, would be used primarily 
by staff rather than students; while the centers at Amherst and 
Boston were apparently not properly funded for student require- 
ments. Due to this concern and due to the fact that the Commit- 
tee was anxious to ensure that, should students have a need for 
the center, they would have priority. It was the Committee's 
request that the Board approve the program for the remainder of 
FY 1978 and that it be reviewed prior to the beginning of FY 197<f. 
Three votes were being proposed: one to establish the center, 
one dealing with a lease agreement, and a third establishing a 
fee schedule. 

Trustee Burack suggested that the vote stipulate that 
students' children have priority in admission to the center. 
Trustee Crain, noting the lateness of the hour, asked that the 
vote be passed as written and that the matter of student priority 



■v 



-9- 



Board 
4/5/78 



Child Care— 
UM/Amherst , 
Boston and 
Worcester 



Report of 
the Committee 
on Budget 
and Finance 



Child Care 
Center — 
UM/Worcester 



Board 
4/5/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

be included in the mandated review of the operation of the 
center. Trustee Kassler stressed his conviction that student 
services were for students and said that while he would vote 
for the center it would be solely until the conclusion of FY 
1978. He would reserve the right to review this matter in the 
context of a new program for next year. Trustee Burack expres- 
sed her concurrence. 






Mr. Kaludis said there were several facts that had 
come to light since the Committee had met which might assuage 
some of the concerns of the Trustees. At present, 21 children 
had applied for admission. Of these, ten were children of 
students or house staff; eight were children of hospital staff; 
and three were children of faculty. Of the 25 medical students 
having children of day care age, four had enrolled. The admin- 
istration was making a strong effort to see that the children 
of students did receive priority and the Trustees could be made 
comfortable in this regard. Trustee Burack said that what made 
her uncomfortable was the fact that the Boston campus had an 
even greater unmet need for day care facilities. She said that 
even if the Worcester campus did not have a day care center, 
she would give high priority to the Boston campus. 

Ms. Pinck said that Secretary Parks had particularly 
asked her to state on his behalf his support for the establish- 
ment of a child care center at Worcester, and that he regards 
the provision of child care facilities as essential to the 
opening of opportunities for women in all the professions. 
Trustee Kassler asked that Secretary Parks be reminded that 
there was also a problem in that of the 400 students at 
Worcester, only 25 had families. The Child Care Center would 
be a factor of the University's ability to attract students 
with young children. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved, 



seconded and 



VOTED : 



To establish a University of Massachusetts 
Medical Center Day Care Trust Fund, which 
shall have as its purposes the provision of 
day care services to the children of Medical 
Center students, faculty and staff, and to 
certain special needs students, and the 
creation of a teaching facility for the Medical 
Center; said trust fund to consist of fees 
received for day care services and other 
monies made available for the trust purpose 
by gift, grant, bequest, or other non-state 
appropriation sources, provided, however, if 
said fees are insufficient to fully support 
the day care center, that any subsidy received 
from the Teaching Hosptial Trust Fund shall 
be in proportion to the percentage of 



I 



i 



■10- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



hospital employees, staff and associated 
personnel whose children are enrolled in 
the day care center; funds held in such 
trust may be disbursed for operation of 
the day care center program and related 
expenses, all as more particularly described 
in Document T78-064. It being understood 
that the operation of the day care center 
will be reviewed prior to June 30, 1978. 



and further, 



VOTED 



To authorize the Chancellor/Dean of the 
Medical Center and the Acting Treasurer 
to enter into a lease agreement between the 
University of Massachusetts Medical Center 
and the Department of Mental Health for the 
operation of the day care center program 
described in Document T78-064. 



and further, 



VOTED : 



To approve the fee schedule for the University 
of Massachusetts Medical Center Day Care pro- 
gram as set forth in Document T78-065 for the 
remainder of this fiscal year. 



Trustee Crain said the Committee had also recommended 
the establishment of a Psychological Services Center Trust Fund— 
UM/Amherst (Document T78-067). Without discussion it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : To establish a University of Massachusetts/ 
Amherst Psychological Services Center Trust 
Fund, which shall have as its purpose the 
providing of counseling and psychotherapy for 
adults and children to be rendered by graduate 
students as part of graduate requirements. 

Further, that this self-supporting trust 
fund (in conjunction with any National Insti- 
tute of Mental Health Grants) support the cost 
of supplies and materials, secretarial and 
administrative assistance, telephone services, 
liability insurance, equipment , and travel 
expenses for the operation of the Psychological 
Services Center, as more fully described in 
Document T78-067; provided, however, that no 
compensation shall be provided to said students 
from this fund. 



-11- 



Board 
4/5/78 



Psychological 
Services 
Center Trust 
Fund— UM/ 
Amherst 
(Doc. T78-067) 



Board 
4/5/78 



Personnel 
Action — 
UM/ Amherst 



Report of 
Ad Hoc 
Committee 
on Board 
Operations 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Further, to close all accounts in the Amherst 
Savings Bank into which fees have been deposited 
by tne Psychological Services Center and transfer 
any balances remaining in said accounts into the 
University of Massachusetts/Amherst Psychological 
Services Trust Fund. 

Further, to adopt the fee schedule set forth 
in Document T78-067 and to authorize the Chancellor 
or his designee to modify from time to time at his 
descretion the fees for said services. 



Chairman Healey said that the Presidential Search 
Committee Report and the Ad Hoc Committee on Labor Relations 
Report had been discussed in executive session. However, a for- 
mal vote was needed on the Personnel Action taken in the executive 
session. This involved the appointment of Acting Vice Chancellor 
and Provost Allen at Amherst. Provost Allen would receive an 
annual salary of $43,550 for the duration of his term. Without 
discussion it was moved, seconded and 



• 



VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as set forth 
in Trustee Document T78-068. 

Trustee Burack then reported for the Ad Hoc Committee 
on Board Operations . The Committee had held an illuminating 
meeting with staff from the Secretary's Office. The Committee 
heard comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the Office and 
recommendations as to the direction in which the Trustees should 
go in order to strengthen its operation. The Committee would 
hold a further meeting and would come to the Board with recom- 
mendations. During the course of her report Trustee Burack made 
a number of kind remarks about the staff of the Secretary's 
Office. 

Trustee Crain said he wished to thank the staff of 
the Boston campus for the idea of sharing their programs, by 
means of the tour of the Media Center just prior to the Board 
meeting. He had found this to be an impressive and upbeat exper 
ience and one that should be continued in association with Board 
meetings. Chairman Healey and the other Trustees agreed with 
these sentiments. 

There was no further business to come before the Board 
and the meeting adjourned at 5:17 p.m. 




John F. Miller 
Assistant to the Secretary 
of the University 



I 



12- 



TENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

May 3, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 
Faculty Conference Room 
Medical Sciences Building 
University of Massachusetts/Worcester 

Trustees and Trustee Staff: Chairman Healey; President Patterson 



Trustees Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dion, Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, 
McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle, 
Shearer and Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Mr. Parks 
Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis; Assistant Secretary Eichel; 
Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Trustees : Trustees Dennis, Fielding, Okin, Romer 9 



Spiller and Winthrop 

Central Administration: Mr. Kaludis , Vice President for Manage- 



ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. Searsoij, 
University Counsel 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 



Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 



for Academic Affairs; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor for Administrative 
and Finance; Professor Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger; Mr. Campbell, Vice Chancellor 



for Administration and Finance; Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for 
Health Affairs; Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

Students United for Public Education : Mr. Chametzky, Mr. DeLima, 



Mr. Federow, Ms. Fitzpatrick, Ms. Lee, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Mandell, 
Ms. Saldinger, Mr. Tarpimian, Ms. Weiss, Mr. Wilson 

The meeting came to order at 2:10 p.m. Chairman Healey 
asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes 
of the previous meeting of the Board. There were none. Without 
discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the April 5, 19 78, 
meeting of the Board of Trustees. 



Chairman Healey then called on Trustee Batiste, who 
introduced her successor as student Trustee from Amherst, Mr. 
Robert Dion. Chairman Healey thanked Ms. Batiste for her excellent 
work as a Trustee. 

The meeting then heard presentations by members of 
Students United for Public Education in which they called for 
Trustee support of their position on the following: 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



Presentation by 
Students United 
for Public 
Education 



Board 
5/3/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

1) no tuition increases, 

2) no budget cuts, 

3) no public money for private schools, 

4) "no" to the Parks' plan for reorganization. 
[NOTE: After the presentation Chairman Healey asked that copies of 
the SUPE members' remarks be made part of the official records of 
the meeting. This has been done and copies of the remarks are 
available on request from the Office of the Secretary to the 
Board. ] 

At the conclusion of the presentation Chancellor Bromery 
said that the concerns expressed by members of SUPE should be seen 
in the context of level funding — the Amherst campus had as many 
students now as it had in 1975, yet was forced to operate with a 
smaller staff. If the campus had a staff as large as in 1975, the 
budget would have to be increased by 20 percent. 

Chairman Healey asked leave to make a personal observatian. 
He noted that he was the senior member of the Board, having served 
for nineteen years. When he was appointed, the University had 
only one campus — Amherst — and that campus had a total of about 
4,000 students. In each intervening year he had participated, 
along with other Trustees, in the annual budget fight with the 
Legislature. This was but one indication of the dedication of the 
Trustees to quality public higher education. 

Chairman Healey said that the Board and SUPE shared a 
number of common goals. However, one of the problems was that, 
in the past, there had been student apathy in matters that directly 
affected the University. During the annual defense of the budget 
very few faculty members and almost no students appeared to support 
the University's position. 



Members of SUPE, Chairman Healey continued, should be 
aware that the Trustees were interested in the welfare of the 
University. An examination of past votes by the Board would show 
that the Trustees had always been willing to further the interests 
of all students and all parts of the University. He said he was 
not in a position to say whether each and every part of SUPE's 
program was acceptable to the Trustees. However, the Trustees 
had demonstrated time and again their dedication to public higher 
education. If this dedication weren't genuine, it was extremely 
unlikely that any of them would continue to serve in such a time- 
consuming and unpaid position. 

Mr. Parks said that since so many of the speakers had 
used his name when referring to a proposal for the reorganization 
of public higher education, and since so many of the speakers 
misinterpreted the rationale behind the proposal, he would be 
happy to meet with them in order to explain his position. Also, 
he said he supported Chairman Healey 's suggestion that students 
and faculty join in the public process of constructing the budget 
by appearing before the appropriate legislative committees. 

Mr. Parks continued by noting that the state's financial 



-2- 



• 



! 



' 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Board 
5/3/78 



situation had eased somewhat after several years of stringency. 
The administration had taken the position that the limited surplus 
of funds which was accumulating should be used to bring about a 
fairer distribution of elementary and secondary educational services 
in the state. Up until now the formula used to distribute funds 
had worked to the benefit of rich communities and to the dis- 
advantage of poor ones. The administration proposed to change th:j_s 
so that the poorer communities would receive a greater percentage 
of the available funds. 

Mr. Parks concluded by noting that the record would 
show that he agreed with SUPE's position that public monies should 
not go to private institutions. He had been against this practice 
for years . 

Trustee Robertson said he thought that the SUPE presenta 
tion had been very good; however, as had been suggested, it was a 
presentation which might have a greater impact if it were made 
before the Legislature. In the matter of a Board response to 
SUPE's program, he said he felt the Trustees would agree with the 
need to defend and promote public higher education; however, it 
would take some time for the Board to develop a point-by-point 
response. 

There was a question from the floor asking if the Board 
would agree to hold an open hearing on the Amherst campus and if 
the Board would accept SUPE's four-point program of no tuition 
increases, no budget cuts, no public money for private schools, 
and "no" to the Parks plan for reorganization. President 
Patterson said that these requests would be considered and response 
would be forthcoming. 

Chairman Healey said it might be helpful if the President 
would indicate the present status of the University's budget 
request. President Patterson reminded the Trustees that House 1, 
the Governor's budget proposal, had been available for some time. 
House 5560, the House Ways and Means Committee's budget proposal, 
was now available. For all public higher education the House 
proposal recommended less money than House 1, 26 out of 30 campuses 
would get less money than the Governor had recommended. The four 
campuses for which more money was recommended were two community 
colleges, UM/Boston and UM/Worcester . 

Compared with FY 1978 appropriations, President Patterson 
continued, the community colleges and Southeastern Massachusetts 
University were up 9 percent; Lowell University was up 8 percent; 
UMass was up 5 percent, and the state colleges were up 1/2 percent, 
House 5560, President Patterson continued, did not include any 
funding for colle ctive bargaining contracts yet to be negotiated 
at either Amherst or Boston. These contracts included both 
faculty and classified staffs. The University's minimum estimate 
of cost of these contracts was $2.7 million for Amherst and 
$574,000 at Boston for a total of just under $3.3 million. Furth<£] 



-3- 



Board 
5/3/78 



Report of the 

Executive 

Committee 

Amendment to 
Affirmative 
Action Policy 
(Doc. T72-155) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the House proposal did not include any money for equipment at any 
state institution. 

House 5560 did include in its state-wide budget provision 
for a reserve account of $30 million to be used to pay wage and 
salary increases and a reserve account of $2 million for equipment . 
Presumably, once contracts had been completed and approved by the 
Governor, the University would apply to the Department of Administration 
and Finance for the needed funds . 

Comparing the University's budget request with the Governor's 
House 1 and the Ways and Means Committee's House 5560 proposals, 
President Patterson said that the total University budget request 
was for $126,700,000; House 1 proposed $116,303,627; House 5560, 
$115,392,255. It was important to note that the House 1 proposal 
included funds for impending wage and salary adjustments; House 
5560 did not. If House 5560 were adjusted to reflect the 
$3,300,000 presumably available from the wage/salary reserve fund, 
then it would be seen to be more favorable to the University than 
House 1. For UM/Boston, the University had requested $22,076,000; 
House 1 proposed $20,500,000; House 5560, $21,700,000. For the 
Medical School $13,200,000 had been requested; House 1 proposed 
$10,900,000; House 5560, $11,100,000. The University requested 
$3,500,000 for the operation of the Teaching Hospital; both House 
1 and 5560 proposed the same amount. The request for UM/ Amherst 
was $83,600,000; House 1 proposed $76,900,000; House 5560, 
$74,400,000. The proposals of the two bills would not seriously 
affect the operation of UM/Boston or the Teaching Hospital; however, 
the Medical School faced a serious shortfall of at least $2,200,000 
and Amherst an even more serious shortfall of at least $6,500,000. 
President Patterson concluded by noting that House 1 proposed 
$900,000 for library materials; House 5560, $1,000,000 for the 
same purpose. 

Chairman Healey said that the President's report had 
showed the budgetary problems faced by the University, particularly 
the Amherst campus. In thanking the members of SUPE for their 
presentation, he urged them to help the University in defending 
the budget request before the Legislature. 

The meeting then turned to the report of the Executive 
Committee. President Patterson said the federal regulations 
regarding Affirmative Action had been changed to address the needs 
of handicapped people thus necessitating an Amendment to the 
Affirmative Action Policy (Doc. T72-155). Without discussion it 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To amend the Statement on Affirmative Action 

(Doc. T72-155, adopted May 26, 1972) by striking 
out the first sentence of the third paragraph and 
inserting in place thereof the following: 
'! — A full plan of affirmative action in hiring 
will include, as required by applicable federal 



• 



-4- 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

regulations, careful identification of areas 
where blacks, other minorities, handicapped and 
women are underutilized or underrepresented at 
the University, special activities to recruit 
qualified personnel to remedy such conditions, 
assurance of equal pay for equal work, and pro- 
motion and training policies which actively 
encourage upward mobility for underutilized and 
underrepresented groups." And to further amend 
said Document T72-155 by striking out the last 
sentence and inserting in place thereof the 
following:" — Therefore the Chancellors are 
directed to submit annually to the President 
affirmative action plans or amendments thereto 
for review and approval." 

President Patterson said the Executive Committee had al 
discussed the Hospital Bylaws. These would be discussed by the 
Board as a whole at a later meeting. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy. Trustee Troy said the Committee 
at its last meeting had first discussed a proposed Change in the 
Name of the Department of Food and Agricultural Engineering to th 
Department of Food Engineering — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-072) . The 
suggested designation more closely reflected the character of the 
program and the Committee recommended that the Trustees approve 
the proposal. There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded 
and 



VOTED : To redesignate the Department of Food and 
Agricultural Engineering in the College of 
Food and Natural Resources at the University 
of Massachusetts at Amherst as the Department 
of Food Engineering, as set forth in Doc. T78- 
072. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee then discussed the over- 
all Policy on Graduate Education on the three campuses . As was 
known, in 1965 the University had been designated the public 
institution for graduate study leading to the doctorate in the 
Commonwealth. While there were three small doctoral programs at 
the University of Lowell and some master's programs at S.M.U., 
Lowell and the State Colleges — most of these last through the 
continuing education route — UM/Amherst was the only public 
institution to offer a full range of master's and doctoral studies 
in the arts and sciences, as well as in professional fields such 
as engineering, education, business, etc., and with adequate 
resources, facilities and the quality of faculty necessary to 
conduct research and educate doctoral candidates. It seemed 
appropriate at this time, Trustee Troy continued, to reaffirm the 
principle of the University's responsibilities in the area of 
graduate study. 



•5- 



Board 
5/3/78 



so 



Report of 
Committee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 

UM/Amherst — 
Change in Name 
of the Depart- 
ment of Food 
and Agricul- 
tural Engineer- 
ing to the 
Department of 
Food Engineer- 
ing (Doc. T78- 
072) 

Policy on 

Graduate 

Education 



Board 
5/3/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

For some four years, the Amherst campus had been 
evaluating and reviewing its programs of graduate study in the light 
of current conditions, such as available financial resources now 
and in the future, the constraints of the market place as they 
affect job opportunities of the graduates, shifting demands withir. 
graduate programs through enrollment pressures, comparative quality 
and strength of individual departments and so on. Evaluations by 
outside, distinguished visiting committees were ongoing on a wide 
front. The campus hoped to have a much clearer view of the prob- 
lems and the opportunities in graduate study as the evaluations 
are concluded. 

The reviews were also being conducted in the light of 
the findings and recommendations of the final report of the 
National Board on Graduate Education, which report studied the 
problems, difficulties and dilemmas faced by graduate education 
nationwide. The problems at Amherst were mirrored in the document: 
as were those of all the other, both private and public, universities 
that offer graduate work. At the meeting the Committee had 
asked that the Amherst campus be prepared to report to it by 
November, 1978, on its conclusions and recommendations for the 
future, looking to the next five to ten years. The Trustees 
wanted some conception and recommendation of the size of the 
Graduate School in relation to the undergraduate student body to 
be included in the report as well as the status of the Five College 
doctoral programs. 

The Committee intended to discuss this report and in turr 
present some fairly firm policy recommendations to the Board in 
December, 1978. The Committee felt that if hard decisions have to 
be made, the campus should be prepared to make them. Also it was 
assumed that the faculty as well as administrators would be 
intimately engaged in these evaluations and in the conclusions 
which follow from them. 

The Committee also examined the question of graduate 
study at the Harbor Campus. When UM/Boston was established in 
1965, the hopes of the campus were to include substantial graduate 
programs when conditions were ripe. 

Originally the campus planned for a student body of 
15,000 including a graduate component of 3,000. There were to be 
six colleges, each with 2,000 undergraduates and 500 graduate 
students. The library and the scientific laboratories were built 
and designed and many of the faculty members at Boston were 
recruited with that plan in mind. 

The realities of the early seventies soon revealed that 
those early projections were unsound and that they were not 
feasible. Demographic studies together with financial constraint^, 
as well as other factors, showed that it was necessary to review 
and cut back on the original plans. In June, 1974, the Board 
voted to set an enrollment target of 10,000 students by 1980 and 
to move with the greatest caution in the area of graduate studies 



-6- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Over the past several years, Boston has established 
five very modest graduate programs — in English, Mathematics, 
Chemistry, History and Biology. Trustee Troy said he thought it 
safe to say that the Boston faculty in general had abandoned the 
view that graduate study at their campus would ever, or should 
ever, evolve in the pattern of the Amherst campus. Still, an 
interest in offering graduate studies appropriate to the campus's 
location and missions, and responsive to very real needs and 
demands in the metropolitan area, remains. The faculty and 
administration have been studying and planning for a carefully 
phased development of selected graduate programs, largely at the 
master's level, as is reflected in a document produced by the campus 
called, "Guidelines for the Development of Graduate Education at 
Boston." 

In brief, Boston would like permission to develop a 
limited graduate component, primarily at the master's level, and 
consistent with the findings and recommendations of the final 
report of the National Board on Graduate Education. These programs 
would respond to the needs of Boston area students, with particular 
emphasis on career opportunities. The notion of turning out larg 
numbers of graduate students in the traditional fields, with no 
realistic job prospects, seems to be an illusion which should be 
dispelled. Efforts would be made to avoid duplication within the 
public sector of higher education. Some programs would be 
developed with a view to the opportunities presented by the 
presence of the Kennedy Library and the State Archives. Since the: 
opportunities for research in these areas should be immensely 
promising and useful, it is possible that some day the doctorate 
could be offered in one or two appropriate disciplines. 

Trustee Troy said there was a tendency now to think 
largely of the constraints on graduate study because of the so- 
called glut of doctoral degrees, but as the NBGE report made cleaif 1 , 
current conditions also make for opportunities, and it is with 
this consideration in mind that the Boston campus has evolved its 
general proposals and plans. The Committee has recommended that 
the Chancellor submit as soon as possible, and after consultation 
with the faculty, an outline of graduate program development with 
some specific examples of contemplated programs. The recommendations 
would then be reviewed by the President and the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy and the full Board prior to sub- 
mission of any specific proposals for graduate programs. The 
Committee felt that this approach to graduate development at the 
Harbor Campus is reasonable, feasible and modest, and that an 
affirmative response by the Board would be encouraging to the 
campus and be of genuine service to students of varying kinds in 
the metropolitan area. 

The Committee then examined proposals from UM/Worcester 
which urged the establishment of a doctoral program in the medica 
sciences. The Medical School effectively is a graduate program oi 
graduate school. Its courses are equivalent to those taken by 



-7- 



Board 
5/3/78 



Board 
5/3/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

doctoral candidates working in biology in good graduate institutions 
Its library and laboratory resources are similar and the faculty's 
capacity for research and scholarship, of course, must be as high 
as that in the best graduate schools. This is why the majority o:: 
medical schools have doctoral programs in the biomedical sciences 
It is a sign and a demonstration of the institution's scientific 
quality and maturity. Indeed, the Liaison Committee on Medical 
Education has faulted the Medical School on the absence of such 
a program. 

The Medical School proposal was for a Ph.D. program in 
medical sciences. This will be presented to the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy at its May meeting. President 
Patterson had described it as solidly conceived, small in scale 
and manageable without any additional faculty resources. This 
proposal will probably be ready in time for the June meeting of 
the Board. 

All of these changes, those contemplated at Amherst, 
Boston and Worcester, would begin to take effect, in one phase 
or another in the fall of 1979. 

Trustee Troy said this overview of graduate study was 
also of interest to the Long- Range Planning Committee. As a mem- 
ber of that Committee, he had presented a similar report to it at 
its last meeting. 

Trustee Troy said there were three votes to be acted on 
They were in a sense signals from the Board to the campuses of the 
Trustees' serious interest in the graduate component of the University 
as a whole. They were a signal, too, that the Board intended to 
encourage selective development and change wherever it was needed 
and that the Board wanted to see this development carefully 
monitored as it evolves within an overall plan, so that it would 
be seen as intelligent and imaginative but not inflexible or 
rigid. Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To reaffirm that the Amherst campus of the 

University of Massachusetts continues to have 
the principal responsibility for carrying out 
the University's role as the primary locus of 
advanced graduate work and research within the 
public sector of higher education in the Common- 
wealth, and further that the Chancellor be asked 
to prepare by October, 1978, for review by the 
President and the Board, a critical evaluation 
of the range and categories of graduate programs 
which will allow the Amherst campus best to 
fulfill this responsibility. This report should 
be based on full campus consultation, and should 
take into account the findings and recommendations 
in the Final Report of the National Board on 
Graduate Education. 



-8- 



t 



» 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



and further 



VOTED : 



To endorse in principle that the Boston campus 
of the University of Massachusetts develop a 
limited graduate component consisting of care- 
fully selected programs, primarily at the Master's 
level, as was suggested in the Guidelines for 
Development of Graduate Education at Boston . 
These programs are to be chosen on the basis of 
the following considerations: 

— consistency with the opportunities as well as 
limitations provided by current national trends, 
as described in the Final Report of the National 
Board on Graduate Education, 

— sensitivity to the needs of Boston-area students 
with particular emphasis on career opportunities, 

— sensitivity to the role of the University within 
the public sector of higher education with 
particular emphasis on avoiding duplication, 

— awareness of the opportunities provided by the 

Kennedy Library and the State Archives in exploring 
the possibility of a full range of graduate 
programs in one or two areas. 

Further, that the Chancellor be asked to submit as 
soon as possible, after appropriate campus con- 
sultation, an outline of anticipated graduate 
program development, with examples of contemplated 
programs, and that this be reviewed by the President 
and the Board prior to the submission of any specific 
graduate program proposal. 



To endorse in principle the establishment of a 
doctoral program in medical sciences at the Worcester 
campus of the University of Massachusetts as being 
consistent with the nature of that campus and nec- 
essary to its proper functioning as a Medical Center 



Trustee Troy said the Committee had also dealt with 
three appointments with tenure. Two of these would be in the 
Department of Civil Engineering, which department, for a variety 
of reasons dating back a number of years, needed strengthening. 
This could only be done by the appointment of two professors of 
recognized stature in their fields. Further, the Commonwealth 
would profit as these appointments would increase the University's; 
capacity to offer technical assistance in a number of areas. 

Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 



-9- 



and further 



VOTED: 



Board 
5/3/78 



Board 
5/3/78 

UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Thomas J. Lard- 
ner as Professor 
of Civil Engi- 
neering with 
Tenure 
(Doc. T78-074) 

UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Ernest T. Selig 
as Professor of 
Civil Engineer- 
ing with Tenure 
(Doc. T78-075) 

UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Melvyn S. Berger 
as Professor of 
Mathematics and 
Statistics with 
Tenure (Doc. 
T78-073) 

Approval of 
Graduation 
Lists — UM/Amhers 
UM/Boston, 
UM/Worcester 



VOTED : 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

To concur in the appointment by the President of 
Thomas J. Lardner as Professor of Civil Engineering 
with tenure at the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst as set forth in Doc. T78-074. 



and further 



VOTED: 



To concur in the appointment by the President of 
Ernest T. Selig as Professor of Civil Engineering 
with tenure at the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst as set forth in Doc. T78-075. 



The third appointment, Trustee Troy continued, was in the area of 
applied mathematics and statistics. For some three years the 
campus had been seeking a highly qualified person in this area 
and had finally found a candidate. It was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To concur in the appointment by the President of 
Melvyn S. Berger as Professor of Mathematics and 
Statistics with tenure at the University of Massa- 
chusetts at Amherst as set forth in Doc. T78- 
073. 

Trustee Troy concluded his report by asking that the Board approve 
the preliminary graduation lists for each of the three campuses. 
It was moved, seconded and 



VOTED: 



and further 



VOTED: 



and further 



VOTED 



To approve the May preliminary graduation lists 
at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst 
(Doc. T78-084), subject to the completion of all 
requirements as certified by the Recorder of the 
campus . 



To approve the June preliminary graduation list 
at the University of Massachusetts at Boston 
(Doc. T78-085) , subject to the completion of all 
requirements as certified by the Recorder of the 
campus. 



To approve the May preliminary graduation list 
at the University of Massachusetts at Worcester 
(Doc. T78-086), subject to the completion of 
all requirements as certified by the Recorder of 
the campus. 



that 



Chairman Healey said there was one name on the graduation list 
deserved particular mention. Marion Batiste, in one of her last 
acts as a Trustee, had prevented what could have been a very 
difficult situation. An honest misunderstanding, involving the 
Board and the members of SUPE, as to the character of the meeting 

-10- 



k 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Board 

5/3/78 
at which SUPE was to make its presentation had developed. SUPE 
members felt that the Board had gone back on a commitment to hold 
an open meeting and that the change in the location of the Board 
meeting was made in order to forestall the SUPE presentation. Ms. 
Batiste's yeowomanlike efforts had defused a potentially difficult 
situation. Chairman Healey expressed his thanks and those of the 
Board to her. 

The Board then heard the report of the Committee on Report of the 
Long-Range Planning. Trustee Marks said he felt that the presents- Committee on 
tion SUPE had made to the Board was as modulated and as controlled Long-Range 
as was the one made earlier to the Long-Range Planning Committee. Planning 
He expressed his relief that the several misunderstandings had 
been cleared up. He noted that SUPE's concerns did not fall 
neatly into the purview of any one of the standing committees. 
Obviously some would have to be addressed by the full Board, otherjs 
by various committees. 

In a way, Trustee Marks continued, this related to the 
fashion in which the Long-Range Planning Committee would normally 
operate. 

There would be cases where committees other than the 
Long-Range Planning Committee would take the lead in dealing with 
policy matters which had long-range planning implications. An 
example of this was the Faculty and Educational Policy Committee's 
involvement in the matter of graduate education. 



Committees on Budget and Finance and Student Affairs. The first 
item dealt with at the meeting had been New Fees and Fee Increases 



Trustee Marks said that the members of the Committees had dis- 
cussed these in detail and had agreed unanimously to recommend 
that the Board approve them. Without discussion it was moved, 
seconded and 



-11- 



UM/Boston — 
Missions and 
Goals 



Trustee Marks said that one of the issues with which the 
Long-Range Planning Committee was presently dealing was the whole 
spectrum of policy framework for UM/Boston, except the matter of 
graduate education. All of the other policy implications of 
direction, of resource allocation and of commitments to a variety 
of items, would be dealt with by the Long-Range Planning Committeje. 
The Committee intended to develop, in timely fashion, a policy 
framework similar in structure to those relating to graduate 
education which the Board had just approved. With such a frame- 
work approved by the Board and in place, UM/Boston would know what 
its source of strength would be in terms of resource allocation and 
could move ahead and be responsive to the interests of campus groups 
and to plans and alternatives that are now being developed on cam- 
pus. 

Trustee Marks then reported on the joint meeting of the Report of Joint 



Meeting of 
Committees on 
j Budget and 
Finance and 
Student Affairs 



Board 
5/3/78 

UM/Amherst — 
Fee Increases 
(Doc. T78-054) 

UM/Boston — 
Fee Increases 
(Doc. T78-077) 



UM/Worcester 
Fee Increases 
(Doc. T78-076) 

UM/Amherst — 
Mandatory 
Student Housing 
Policy 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : To approve fee increases for UM/Amherst as set 
forth in Doc. T78-054. 



and further 



I 



Nantucket Field 
Station — 



VOTED : To approve fee increases for UM/Boston as set 
forth in Doc. T78-077. 

and further 

VOTED : To approve fee increases for UM/Worcester as set 
forth in Doc. T78-076. 

Trustee Marks said that the Committees had then received 
a report on the Mandatory Student Housing Policy — UM/Amherst. 
This was a preliminary report on a complex matter. The Trustees 
had expressed interest and support for the suggestion that juniors 
no longer be required to live in the residence halls; however, 
they were also concerned about the possible financial implications 
of such a move. The matter would be brought before the Board at 
its next meeting. 



The Budget and Finance Committee had then dealt with the 
item Nantucket Field Station — Acquisition of Surplus Federal 
Acquisition of Property (Doc. T78-079). Trustee Marks noted that this was an 
Surplus Federal: opportunity to acquire property that would be very useful to 



Property 
(Doc. T78-079) 



UM/Worcester — 
Establishment 
of Tissue 
Culture Trust 
Fund. (Doc. T78- 
080) 



Boston's program on the island. This acquisition was in accordance 
with the interests and desires of the residents of Nantucket. 
The property on the site was in good condition and the University 
would not be immediately faced with problems of deferred maintenance. 
It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the President to accept from the 
Federal Department of Health, Education and 
Welfare surplus Federal property on Nantucket 
Island as described in Doc. T78-079. 

Trustee Marks said the next two items were non-controversial and 
it was moved, seconded and 



I 



VOTED: 



To establish the University of Massachusetts/ 
Worcester Tissue Culture Trust Fund, which shall have 
as its purpose the providing of advanced level 
services in tissue culture and media preparation, 
as outlined in Doc. T78-080. The costs of the 
operation and maintenance of this self-supporting 
trust fund, which shall include the services of a 
senior tissue culture technician, materials, and 
equipment, shall be recovered from fees charged 
to users of the facility. The Chancellor of the 
Worcester campus is hereby delegated the authority 
to establish and modify from time to time at his 
discretion the fees for the use of said facility. 



and further 



-12- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : To authorize the Chancellor/Dean of the Medical 
Center to execute on behalf of the University in 
FY 1979 and subsequent years such Hospital 
Reimbursement Agreements with Blue Cross of 
Massachusetts, Inc., and/or its successor as are 
substantially similar in concept and reimbursement 
mechanisms as are now in effect and as may be 
required for participation in the Blue Cross 
service plan whereby payment for hospital care, 
treatment, and reimbursement for other health 
services are provided by Blue Cross to members of 
such plan. 



Trustee Marks concluded by noting that the Committee hac 
also heard reports on the Accounts Receivable System and from the 
Investment Counsel. The Accounts Receivable System was being 
installed on schedule and it was expected that it would offer 
great improvements over the old system. The report of the Invest- 
ment Counsel was unexceptional. 

The Board then heard the Report of Delegate to the Boarc 
of Higher Education. Trustee Sawtelle said that the BHE, for the 
first time in two years, now had a full complement of members. 
The Search Committee for a new chancellor was now working with a 
short list and it was expected that an appointment would be made 
by June 15, 1978. Also, new procedural guidelines for Affirmative 
Action had been approved. One of the new rules calls for the 
Board of Higher Education to keep the segment heads informed at all 
times as to whether they are in compliance with Affirmative Actior 
regulations. The Chairman of the Board of Higher Education had 
met with the Governor and the Governor had promised greater and 
continued support for the Board of Higher Education and its effor 
Finally, a BHE committee was now working to establish new guide- 
lines for the accreditation of institutions and programs. 



The meeting then heard the Reports of Delegates to the 
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges 
Conference. Trustee McNulty said she had first attended a special 
session for new trustees. This she found very good and she wishec 
she had been able to attend such a meeting immediately upon her 
appointment to the Board. Included as part of the session was an 
excellent film on trusteeship. 



The meetings she had found most valuable, she continued, 
were those having to do with presidential selection. It was 
comforting to learn that the Board in its search process had 
touched all of the important bases. A soon to be released study 
of presidential candidates and some of the findings were of intere 

— 42 percent of the candidates did not feel they 
received full information about the institution 
seeking a president; 

— 33 percent felt the financial arrangements were 
either not clearly indicated or only partially so; 

— many candidates were concerned about confidentiality 



-13- 



Board 
5/3/78 

UM/ Worcester — 
Authorization 
of Chancellor/ 
Dean to Execute 
Hospital 
Reimbursement 
Agreements with 
Blue Cross and/ 
or its Successor 
(Doc. T78-081) 



Report of 
Delegate to 
Board of Higher 
Education 



Reports of 
Delegates to 
AGB Conference 



Board 
5/3/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

and the impact on their futures if confidentiality 

was not honored; 
— time was another important factor — either the 

candidate was forced to decide too soon or was 

left dangling too long; 
— another area of confusion was that the method of 

assessment was not spelled out clearly. 

Trustee McNulty said she had raised questions about 
presidential perquisites and had learned that at Wisconsin the 
president was supplied with a house and a car; however, the car 
had to be made in Wisconsin. In Texas, presidents also received 
a house and car. They were allowed to serve on boards of 
corporations; however, any fees they received had to be forwarded 
to the account of the University. 

Trustee McNulty said that trustee problems across the 
country seemed to be the same, though with dissimilarities. She 
said that many of the speeches made at the conference would appear 
in forthcoming AGB reports. She urged the Trustees to read them. 



Trustee Popko said that as a new Trustee she had found 
the conference rewarding and stimulating. She too had left feeling 
that trustees everywhere were in the same boat. There were 
differences of approach to issues and problems but commonality 
was certainly present. 

Also impressive was the fundamental nature of many of 
the questions raised. For example, the four unsettled questions 
of higher education posed by Dean Cheit of the School of Business 
Administration at Berkeley, namely: 

— Who should have access? 

— Who should make educational policy — students, trustees 

faculty, administration? 
— What constitutes an educated person? 
— How can colleges and Universities give youth a sense 

of worth when the labor market does not? 

Trustee Popko said that she found it of interest that 
at almost every session that she had attended the subject of adult 
or lifelong learning had been discussed. She had also attended 
sessions on statewide coordination and on institutional planning 
and budgeting. The common thread in all these was that when 
budgets became tight, the focus turned to what the market was and 
how to respond. 

One speaker had pointed out that 86 percent of the 164 
million adults in the U.S. were involved in some sort of independent 
learning activity. However, only 10 to 14 percent of these 
activities took place in colleges or universities. The speaker's 
main theme had been that one of the main emphases of colleges and 
universities should be to look at their mission statements and 
their roles with a view to broadening these to encompass the 
concept of lifelong education. 

-14- 



l 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey then said that at the Executive Com- 
mittee meeting earlier in the day it had been agreed that the 
Board would hold a special meeting on May 15, 1978. He then pro- 
posed that the Board go into executive session in order to dis- 
cuss collective bargaining matters. At the conclusion of the 
executive session he would entertain a motion to adjourn and the 
meeting would not reconvene in open session. He asked Ms. Eichel 
to call the roll. 

Trustee Dion asked leave to make a special request of 
the Trustees. He said he was well aware that this was a very 
irregular procedure; however, there was a situation at the Am- 
herst campus that was of concern to the entire student body. He 
asked permission to yield the floor to William Sundstrom, Editor- 
in-chief of the Massachusetts Daily Collegian . Chairman Healey 
gave his permission. 

Mr. Sundstrom said that a number of students had barri- 
caded themselves in the office of the Collegian in an effort to 
enforce demands that the newspaper devote four full pages per 
week to the coverage of women's news and that the Women's Editor 
be given total editorial control over these pages. 

The barricade was the culmination of a series of activi 
ties over a three week period which Mr. Sundstrom enumerated. 

In sum, the Board of Editors had concluded: 

— That the Collegian had been subject to harassment 
that was in violation of its First Amendment rights. 

— The Student Senate, the Campus Center Board of Gover- 
nors, the protestors and the campus administration 
had all engaged in illegal acts that would effectively 
influence the content and policy of the paper. 

— The campus administration had refused to enforce the 
picketing provisions of the Board of Trustees approvec 
Code of Student Conduct. 

— The campus administration had employed a double stan- 
dard. Restraining orders had been obtained to end 
earlier occupations. 

— The Chancellor and Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs 
had mismanaged the situation, thus exacerbating the 
conflict between the protestors and the Board of Edi- 
tors. 

— The Trustees should consider all aspects of the situ- 
ation and conduct a review of the actions of the cam- 
pus administration. 

— The University had the responsibility to enforce the 
right of the Board of Editors to print the Collegian 
without undue hardship. 

In the ensuing discussion a number of points were dis- 
cussed, including the Chancellor's desire to see that all pos- 
sible avenues of resolution were exhausted before going to the 



-15- 



Board 
5/3/78 



Board 
5/3/78 



Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Superior Court for relief; the situation was unusual in that it 
was a student vs. student confrontation rather than, e.g., stu- 
dent vs. administration; while there was a clear violation of 
picketing provisions of the Code of Student Conduct, which code 
the students had in large measure written, there was a reluctance 
on the part of the students to enforce the code; there were of- 
fices in addition to the Collegian office which were closed be- 
cause of the occupation; finally, it was the sense of the Board 
that the Chancellor should move as rapidly as possible to resolve 
the situation and should keep the Board informed of developments. 

Chairman Healey then asked for a vote to enter execu- 
tive session for the reasons previously stated. Without discus- 
sion, at 4:39 p.m., it was moved, seconded and on roll call, 



VOTED 



To enter executive session. 



Trustees Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dion, Kassler, Krumsiek 
Marks, McNeil, McNulty, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle, 
Shearer and Troy voted for the motion, as did Chairman Healey, 
President Patterson, Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig, and 
Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis. Trustees Breyer, Dennis, 
Fielding, Morgenthau, Okin, Spiller and Winthrop were not present 
when the vote was taken. 

At 5:30 p.m. it was moved, seconded and voted to end 
the executive session and to adjourn.* 



/aLu-^x^^ 



Dorothy Eicfl/tel 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



"As a result of discussions in the executive session, Trustee 
Krumsiek, Chairman of the ad hoc Committee on Labor Relations, 
composed the attached statement reflecting the views of the 
Board. 



-16- 



i 



» 



P 



t 



BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

STATEMENT CONCERNING UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT 

AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 



The University's Governance Document, Trustee Document T73-098, which 
was adopted by the Board of Trustees on April 4, 1973, is being reviewed by 
the Administration of the University simultaneously with the collective 
bargaining effort between representatives of the University and the Faculty 
union in order to provide the Trustees with a current evaluation of the impact 
on University governance of any agreement reached at the bargaining table. 
The sole purpose of the ongoing review is to insure that the University's 
Governance Document and any collective bargaining agreement reached with the 
faculty unit will be consistent and compatible. The Trustees have requested 
and endorse this limited review process as an undertaking by the University's 
Administration to maintain and preserve the historic and important role of the 
Faculty in the governance of the University consistent with the continuing 
and non-delegable responsibility of the Trustees to maintain the academic 
integrity of the University of Massachusetts. 



f 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



i 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 



May 15, 1978; 2:30 p.m. 
Venetian Room 
Copley Plaza Hotel 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Trustees and Trustee Staff: Chairman Healey, President Patterson; 



Trustees Anrig, Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Dion, Fielding, 
Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, 
Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle, Shearer, Spiller, Troy, Winthrop ; Sec- 
retary Parks representing Trustee Dukakis; Treasurer Brand, Assis- 
tant Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Trustees: Trustees Okin and Romer 



Central Administration Staff: Mr. Bondy, Assistant Vice President 



for University Relations; Mr. Cass, Executive Assistant to the 
President and Director of the Institute for Labor Affairs; Mr. Gil 
more, Special Assistant to the President; Mr. Sear son, General 
Counsel to the University; Ms. Taylor, Assistant Director of the 
Budget; Mr. White, Director of University Relations 

UM/Amherst : Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative; Mr. Brooks 



Professional Association; Mr. Mahoney, Associate Alumni; Mr. Mel- 
ley, Director of Public Affairs; Mr. O'Connell, Director, Alumni 
and Annual Fund 

UM/Boston : Mr. Ryan, Director, Public Information 



Guests : Mr. Barrus, Assistant Commissioner of Food and Agricul- 



ture; Mr. Callahan, Office of Commissioner of Education; Ms. Pinckj, 
Assistant Secretary of Educational Affairs 

The meeting was called to order at 2:50 p.m. by Chair- 
man Healey. He announced that the purpose of this special meeting 
was to hear the report of the Search Committee and to take any 
action thereon that the Board might wish to take. 

He then explained the process which the Board would fol 
low: it would first hear from the Chairman of the Search Commit- 
tee, Trustee Breyer, who would outline the history of the search 
and would introduce the general subject of the professional quali- 
fications of the individuals being considered by the Board. At 
the conclusion of that discussion, he continued, he understood thajt 
a motion would be made that the Board go into executive session to 
discuss the reputation and character of each candidate, rather 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

than his or her professional competence. In addition, since it iji 
contemplated that tenure will be offered to the candidate who is 
chosen as President, if that candidate does not already have ten- 
ure at the University, and since this is one of the exceptions in 
the statute and the by-laws of the Board covering the Open Meeting 
Law, the Board would discuss matters related to tenure as appro- 
priate in executive session. 

At the end of that session, Chairman Healey continued, 
the Board would resume the open meeting and would then, depending 
on the Board's wishes, move to the choice in open meeting of the 
President of the University. 

Chairman Healey then recognized Trustee Breyer. 

Trustee Breyer said he would first outline the process 
followed by the Search Committee and would then report on conclu- 
sions reached by the Committee. He said he expected that the 
Board would then discuss the professional competence of a number 
of individuals and would thereafter go into executive session. 

Trustee Breyer noted that the search process had begun 
with the establishment of an ad_ hoc committee headed by Trustee 
Morgenthau last summer. As the result of the recommendations of 
that committee, a Search Committee was established consisting of 
six Trustees, three faculty members, one from each campus, and 
two students, one from Amherst and one from Boston. In addition, 
there were faculty advisory committees at each campus and student 
advisory committees at Amherst and Boston. Trustee Breyer was 
appointed Chairman in September, 1977. 

Trustee Breyer said the first matters considered by the 
Committee were the main problems perceived to be facing the Univeil 
sity; those perceptions would guide the Committee in determining 
the qualifications sought in a President. Accordingly, the Com- 
mittee held day-long hearings on each campus, meeting with admin-- 
istrators, faculty members and students both privately and in ses-j 
sions open generally to anyone wishing to express a point of view 
The major problems facing the University, as expressed in those 
meetings, said Trustee Breyer, included: 

• Level funding, and the need to maintain stable finan- 
cial support; 

• The need for a planning process concerned with edu- 
cational objectives and emerging from the University community, 
not simply reflecting administration dictates; 

• The need for a President qualified to deal with col- 
lective bargaining; 

• The issue of reorganization of the public sector of 
higher education in the Commonwealth; 



-2- 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

• The relationship of the public and private sectors of 
higher education in a period of declining enrollments and steady- 
state financing; 

• The role of the Medical School in public health in the 
Commonwealth. 

The Board and the Committee had considered each of these 
issues, and the Committee had also sought the opinions of individ- 
uals outside the University, including officials in state govern- 
ment, and editors of the Boston Globe . 

As the result of this process, said Trustee Breyer, the 
Committee prepared and brought to the Board for ratification a set 
of qualifications sought in a new President: ability to adminis- 
ter a $200 million budget, to administer the educational responsi- 
bilities of the University, to obtain governmental support, to re- 
late to the private sector. 

While this process was continuing, said Trustee Breyer, 
the Committee was also seeking to identify candidates, or prospect^ 
for the Presidency. The Committee sent letters, seeking recommen- 
dations, to Presidents of many educational institutions; placed ad* 
vertising in leading journals, including those aimed at minority 
candidates. The Committee also "tracked through networks" asking 
about prospective prospects and actively seeking those prospects. 
Those "networks" included "traditional" networks — seeking within 
the academic world information about individuals regarded as highly 
qualified academic administrators. Such efforts included meeting 
with officials of the Ford Foundation, the State University of New 
|York, the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations and others, and con- 
versations with Presidents and others in major universities. In 
addition the Committee dealt with "non-usual networks," such as 
those with information about women and minorities in higher educa- 
tion. It also interviewed representatives of the business, scien- 
tific, government, legal, "pure academic" and health communities. 



This process, said Trustee Breyer, produced about 300 
names; and the Committee opened 197 files, with references. The 
Committee then began to cull through these files and reduced them 
to about 25-30 names. It interviewed 30 individuals, and visited 
many campuses seeking background information. As a result of the 
process, it developed a "short list" of candidates seriously in- 
terested in the job and in whom the Committee was seriously inter- 
ested. The Committee then returned to the Board with a list of 
five prospects; it asked the Board to interview these individuals, 
and asked the individuals to meet with campus groups, including 
faculty, student, and alumni committees. This, said Trustee Breyer 
had taken place in the past month. As reported in the news media, 
the five individuals identified were the following: 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



-3- 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

— Chancellor Randolph W. Bromery, an extremely distin- 
guished academic with administrative experience as Chancellor at 
Amherst for several years; 

— Charles Foster, dean of Forestry School at Yale; 

— Marilyn Gittell, associate provost at Brooklyn college; 

— David Knapp, provost at Cornell University; 

— James Vorenberg, associate dean at Harvard Law School. 

All have demonstrated a strong commitment to public 

higher education, said Trustee Breyer, and each has strong, but 

different credentials. Therefore, a detailed Board discussion was 
in order. 

On Saturday, May 13, according to Trustee Breyer, the 
Committee met for seven hours to consider the candidates; it met 
in public session to discuss professional qualifications, and in 
executive session to discuss reputation and character of the can- 
didates. The result of the meeting was that there was some sup- 
port for each of the prospects; the consensus of the Committee was 
to recommend to the Board that it consider offering the Presidency 
to Ms. Gittell, Mr. Knapp, or Mr. Vorenberg; but some members of 
the Committee wished to offer all five names to the Board for con- 
sideration, and the Committee is prepared to discuss all five. 

Chairman Healey asked if there were any objection to this 
procedure; there was none. 

Trustee Breyer then proposed that the Board proceed to 
a public discussion of the professional competence of each candi- 
date, reserving both positive and negative comments about reputa- 
tion and character for the executive session. 

Trustee Breyer then proceeded to open the discussion of 
the professional competence of individual candidates, summarizing 
views with regard to each candidate. 

» Chancellor Bromery . He is "a distinguished geologist" 
and one reference states that the quality of his many publications 
is as impressive as the number of publications. He knows the Uni- 
versity well, as Chancellor, and has dealt with every major pro- 
blem facing the University over the past several years. 

• Charles Foster. Dean Foster has had less of an aca- 



I 



I 



demic background but has had a distinguished career in environmen- 
tal affairs; he has served as a state cabinet member, and has 
strong experience as a public administrator. 



-4- 



I 



1 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

• Marilyn Gittell. Dr. Gittell has had a career as an 
academic which has brought her into contact with many public issues 
and a considerable amount of academic administrative experience, 
ler academic interests have interacted with her administrative ex- 
periences. She had to deal as an academic administrator with seri 
3us fiscal and planning issues. 

• David Knapp . Dr. Kanpp has produced a number of schof. 
arly works which have been characterized as good; he left the di- 
rect scholarly role to become an administrator at the University o: 
Slew Hampshire. At Cornell he revitalized what had been essentially 
a home economics school, making it into the College of Human Ecol- 
Dgy. As the result of that, he became Provost and chief academic 
Dfficer at Cornell and has dealt with virtually every problem we 
are likely to face in Massachusetts. 

• James Vorenberg . Mr. Vorenberg is a graduate of Har- 
/ard College and Harvard Law School, served as law clerk to 
Justice Frankfurter, then practiced law before coming to Harvard 

aw School as a faculty member. He was first director of the Of- 
fice of Criminal Justice in the Department of Justice and was exec-- 
ative director of President Johnson's commission on crime. He es- 
sentially organized the Watergate special prosecution force under 
D rofessor Archibald Cox; has been Master of a Harvard House for 
five years and has thereby had contact with students; has served 
as counsel to the Legislature's ethics committee. He is a distin- 
guished scholar and is acquainted with the University world. 

Trustee Breyer then invited discussion of the candidates. 

Secretary Parks stated for Trustee Dukakis that it was 
:iot the governor 's intention to participate in the selection; Sec- 
retary Parks had participated in all interviews and said that he 
would participate in the discussion. 

Chairman Healey stated that there were 23 Trustees pre- 
sent at the meeting who were qualified to vote; under the law, des 
ignated representatives of ex-of f icio Trustees may not participate 
in voting on personnel appointments. Commissioner Okin was in 
Washington and would not be present to participate. 

Trustee 0' Sullivan then read a statement in which he ex- 
Dressed several concerns about the five candidates. He said it 
tfas significant that none is a president or former president of a 
aniversity or college, and none has much experience in adminis- 
tration of a large multi-campus public institution. Trustee 
3 'Sullivan said that the President must be sensitive to the diver- 
sity of the University; he must be able to reinvigorate the morale 
and energies of the University community. He recommended that the 
3oard ask President Patterson to continue to serve for at least 
wo years, and that the Board work with him to eliminate the con- 
ilicts which, he said, had made the position unattractive to pres- 
idents of other universities. The search should then be reopened 



-5- 



BOAPJJ 
5/15/78 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

in about a year. Trustee 0' Sullivan said his recommendation was 
not intended as a criticism of the work of the Search Committee bu ; 
reflected the difficulties of their task. 

Trustee Troy responded that Trustee ' Sullivan had mini-*- 
nized the administrative experience of the candidates; all, he said, 
lad a good deal of such experience. Trustee Breyer noted that Cor-- 
lell is partially funded by the state of New York, and its adminis^ 
:rators must deal with the legislature there; other candidates have 
also had comparable experience. Chairman Healey noted that Chan- 
:ellor Bromery had had extensive contact with the Legislature. 

Professor Brogan, the Amherst faculty representative, 
was invited to comment. He said that he understood the complexity 
)f relationships at an institution such as Cornell, which combines 
mblic and private elements, and suggested that such experience 
would be pertinent to the requirements of the University of Massa- 
chusetts. 



At the suggestion of Trustee Burack, Trustee Breyer ther. 
summarized the comments of members of the Search Committee, at 
:heir final meeting, with respect to the professional competence 
of the candidates. 

Trustee Breyer reported the following comments; 

» Dr. Gittell was said to have considerable academic anc 
Dractical experience. Some regarded her as an "academic activist" ; 
a campus representative was very impressed with her knowledge of 
:he academic situation. Another campus representative said she ap-- 
Deared to have a very detailed educational philosophy worked out; 
Ihere was disagreement as to whether the University wanted an in- 
dividual with such a philosophy. She has been involved in decen- 
zralization of New York public schools, and in open admissions. 
Another member commented that she seemed to regard scholarship as 
a tool in social activism and social activism as a tool in her 
scholarship . 

• Some felt that Dr. Knapp is a traditional academic ad- 
ministrator. He has had experience with the problems that the Uni- 
versity faces. His knowledge of these problems has been favorably 
received by the faculty. Students felt he had an appropriate con- 
;ern with rising costs of education. 

• Mr. Vorenberg was regarded as having done a good job 
with students in his capacity as Master of a Harvard House. He has; 

:onsiderable "outside" experience with federal and state govern- 
nents. He has put together a small but complex organization, but 
las never put together a large complex organization. He knows the 
academic world and has a strong interest in the problems of public 
education, including eliminating barriers to access to higher edu- 
cation. 



■6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

• Chancellor Bromery has been in the midst of the heart 
}f every problem that has faced this University. He has put him- 
self "on the line," so some are happy with him and others are not. 

• Members were a little disturbed by the fact that Dean 
? oster was not convinced in his own mind that he is interested in 
:he Presidency. Professionally, he has demonstrated great strength 
in public administration. 

Trustee Burack said that there were negative as well as 
positive comments made about all candidates; she stated that she 
tfas not necessarily expressing her own views, but those views which 
she recalled had been expressed by members of the Committee. Trust 
:ee Burack mentioned the following views and questions: 

• The lack of professional enthusiasm in the position 
expressed by Dean Foster, which weakened the Committee's interest 
Ln considering his candidacy in detail; 

« Whether Dr. Gittell, in addition to her interest in 
change, was also interested in supporting humanistic and liberal 
arts components of the University; 

• While Chancellor Bromery had indeed dealt with many 
problems, he had brought many of them upon himself and had not 
lealt with some others with great success. 

Trustee Burack noted parenthetically that she was sensi- 
tive to Chairman Healey ' s insistence that the Board separate for 
Durposes of discussion matters of professional reputation as op- 
posed to personal reputation and character. 

There was some concern, Trustee Burack continued, for 
yir. Knapp's somewhat authoritarian position in certain areas vis- 
a-vis student participation and student voting except in areas of 
direct concern to them, as well as for his expressed nervousness 

over the role of the Board and the relationship of the central of- 
fice and the President to the Board and to the total university; 
and whether he understands the complexity of collective bargaining 

Trustee Breyer noted that all members were properly con- 
cerned with the Open Meeting Law and were well aware that law also 
Dlaced a constraint upon members of the public present at the meet 
Lng not to take isolated negative remarks out of context. He cau- 
:ioned that the fact that negative remarks were made about each 
candidate simply indicated that each was human, and that the Board 
should consider both positive and negative qualities in them. 

Trustee Kassler noted that Chairman Healey had indicatec 
at the beginning of the meeting that if the President-elect were 
:rom outside the University, he or she would be offered tenure in 
onj unction with the appointment. He asked the Chairman to provide 
background information on this matter, and asked the Trustees to 
:onsider whether it was the desire of the Board to offer tenure to 
:he President. 



-7- 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey responded that it was the tradition of 
the University to offer tenure to a President upon appointment; he 
mew of no exceptions to this tradition. 

Trustee Kassler then asked the Board whether it wished 
to continue this practice and offer tenure to the President. 

Trustee Morgenthau responded that she believed it was 
lormal procedure to offer tenure to a Presidential candidate, and 
that it was also a normal request on the part of a serious candi- 
date that tenure be offered. Tenure is the only guarantee of any 
cind of security to any individual who normally holds tenure at 
another institution. 

Trustee Crain stated he had been informed that President 
-food had been granted tenure as a University professor at the time 
Df his appointment; he sought clarification of the nature of the 
:enured position to be offered to a new President. 

Chairman Healey said that his intention when he raised 
:he matter, was that the Board would offer a regular tenured fac- 
llty position to the new President. He asked for a Board motion 
3n this matter. 



Trustee Kassler then moved, and it was seconded and 

VOTED : That if a candidate who is not currently serv- 
ing at the University is offered the Presidency 
of the University, he/she will also be offered 
the position of professor with tenure consist- 
ent with his/her academic background and speci- 
alty and with the needs of the University, it be- 
ing understood that the position will not be a 
named professorship or chair. 

Professor Brogan, prior to the vote, inquired whether 
trustee Kassler had considered the effect of such a vote on long- 
range departmental planning and the structure of the department in- 
volved. 

Trustee Kassler asked for a detailed explanation, with 
respect to Mr. Vorenberg, of the duties involved in the position of 
laster of a House at Harvard. Trustee Breyer responded that Mas- 
:ers are responsible for social and academic life of undergraduates; 
.iving in the Houses; he described it as a complicated job. He 
said Mr. Vorenberg was regarded as having been extremely success- 
ful in rebuilding the community life in his House after the period 
)f the late sixties. 

Secretary Parks inquired of Trustee Breyer what the 
search Committee had sought with respect to a candidate's relation- 
ship to public higher education. Trustee Breyer responded that the 



-8- 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



Committee has sought a demonstrated commitment to the cause of pub- 
lic higher education. Secretary Parks said four of the candidates 
had a fairly clear relationship to public higher education; he 
sought discussion of Mr. Vorenberg's position with respect to pub-' 
lie higher education. 

Trustee Breyer noted that the Committee had specified 
commitment to, but not necessarily experience in, public higher 
education. He said that Mr. Vorenberg had dedicated much of his 
life to the objection of removing barriers to access and success. 
His civic and professional activities have always been in that 
direction, and members of the Committee were satisfied that he 
satisfied the requirement of commitment. 

Trustee McNulty asked for a summary of student and fac- 
ulty comment on the candidates. 

Trustee Breyer summarized as follows: 



• The Amherst faculty member expressed the view that 
Chancellor Bromery's substantial experience was relevant to the 
Presidency. The Boston faculty representatives stated that Chan- 
cellor Bromery had become identified with the union controversy; 
accordingly, he believed there was a problem with an "inside" can- 
didate. A student member described Chancellor Bromery's academic 
credentials as impressive but said it was difficult for a student 
to judge such matters. The Amherst student believed that Chancel- 1 
lor Bromery had always tried to encourage a full discussion of is- 
sues. The Boston student was reluctant to judge his professional 
competence but said she believed students viewed Chancellor 
Bromery as a candidate with professional competence. 

• As to Dean Foster, the discussion was more limited, but 
a faculty member noted his administrative experience was good. A 
student had raised the concern about his academic administrative 
experience. 

• As to Dr. Gittell, a faculty member said he was im- 
pressed by her knowledge of academic problem areas. The faculty 
member wondered whether the detailed educational philosophy she 
had expressed in the past would guide her at the University. 
Another faculty member had expressed the view that her prior ad- 
ministrative experience at Brooklyn College had aquainted her with 
problems at the University, but raised the question of her view of 
scholarship as a tool of social activism. One student said he be- 
lieved she had the ability to deal with the situation; another 
student noted that Ms. Gittell had indicated interest in involving 
students in the decision-making process; but the student ques- 
tioned the extent of student interest in this matter, 

• As to Dr. Knapp, a faculty member expressed the view 
that his academic qualifications were strong; another commented on 



-9- 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

his rich experience as an administrator and his sincere commitment 
to higher education of excellent quality. A student said the stu- 1 - 
dents liked Dr. Knapp and felt he had a real concern with rising 
costs; another student said Dr. Knapp had been well-received by 
students. 

• As to Mr. Vorenberg, one faculty member noted that he 
was regarded as having demonstrated a high degree of competency in 
his public accomplishments, though these were not in the field of 
public higher education. Another faculty member said Mr. Voren- 
berg had a distinguished record and experience as a mediator and 
his respect for public higher education was clear. The student 
members said Mr. Vorenberg had elicited strong diversity of opin- 
ion among students; that he was regarded as highly intelligent anc. 
competent . 

Trustee McNeil asked for information on each candidate's 
views of collective bargaining, and on their views of the relatior. 
ship between the President and the Board. 

Trustee Breyer said all candidates recognize that col- 
lective bargaining is here, and must be dealt with as a major area 
of responsibility, regardless of their personal views on the mat- 
ter. As to the relationships with the Board, the issue came to a 
distinction between policy matters and daily administrative mat- 
ters. Board members in interviews have had an opportunity to come 
to understand each candidate's views on this distinction. 

Trustee Burack reiterated Trustee Breyer 's summary of 
the collective bargaining matter. She said that Dr. Knapp ap- 
peared to have indicated "a little wistfulness" about the issue, 
possibly because there was no union at Cornell. Dr. Gittell, she 
said, indicated she would not be bothered by the union matter. 

Trustee Kassler noted that Dr. Gittell had been actively 
involved in collective bargaining, which had become a strong force 
in the City College of New York system. He said the context of 
discussion of collective bargaining issues should be understood; 
all candidates had reported hearing faculty concerns about the 
future course of bargaining and its effect on faculty/administra- 
tion relationships. 

Trustee Burack, commenting on the views of the candi- 
dates with respect to relationships with the Board, noted that 
Dr. Knapp and other candidates had reported campus concerns on 
this matter. She said he had expressed the view that if the Boarc 
could be kept fully informed well in advance of necessary decision 
making times, it could be freed of concerns for direct involvement 
She said there had been discussions with the candidates about 
bringing to the Board options and alternatives rather than a singl 
recommendation. She said Dr. Knapp had indicated he would favor 
having many meetings on issues prior to the meeting at which a 
decision had to be made. 



-10- 



I 



I 



I 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Troy commented that he had sensed particularly 
in Dr. Knapp and Mr. Vorenberg a feeling that the President must 
be a leader, and must be allowed to take initiative. Both were 
concerned about the freedom with which they would be allowed to 
operate. 

Professor Brogan commented that he was impressed with 
Dr. Gittell, but wondered whether the Board had considered her in- 
volvement in the Ocean Hill-Brownsville controversy in New York 
and the difficulties he said this created with the union there. 
Trustee Breyer said he had discussed this matter with persons fa- 
miliar with the controversy; there was no secret that the teacher r 
union in New York was very much opposed to her position. The per- 
sons who had hired her for her present job believed that this mat- 
ter was irrelevant to her professional ability. 

Secretary Parks commented on this matter that Dr. Git- 
tell was regarded as having acted in a statesmanlike manner and 
was a positive catalyst. 

Trustee Breyer said a number of individuals with whom 
he had talked had given her high marks in professional competence 
in this matter. 

Trustee Kassler, commenting on the matter of Board re- 
lationships, said Dr. Knapp had indicated it was his preference tc 
engage in informal discussions with Trustees prior to resolution 
of problems, but did not believe it was consistent with good 
policy to hammer things out at meetings at great length. 

Trustee Krumsiek inquired whether all the candidates 
were still viable prospects and would accept the Presidency if of- 
fered. Trustee Breyer said at least four were, while Mr. Foster 
was not totally sure. Trustee Krumsiek asked whether the matter 
of salary and perquisites had been discussed with the candidates 
and whether they had indicated satisfaction with the proposed 
range. Trustee Breyer indicated in the affirmative. 

Chairman Healey then called for a motion to enter execu- 
tive session for the sole purpose of discussing the character, 
reputation and award of tenure to candidates for the presidency 
of the University, which, he explained, were matters excepted fron 
the open meeting law. The Board would reconvene in open session, 
he said, at the conclusion of the executive session. 

On motion made and seconded and upon roll call, at 4:14 
p.m. it was 

VOTED : To enter executive session for the sole purpose of 
discussing the character, reputation and award of 
academic tenure to candidates for the presidency of 
the University. (See Addendum to Minutes.) 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



-11- 



Executive Session 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustees Anrig, Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Dion, 
Fielding, Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, 
0' Sullivan, Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle, Shearer, Spiller, Troy anc. 
Winthrop voted for the motion, as did Chairman Healey and Presi- 
dent Patterson. Secretary Parks was not polled; Trustees Dukakis. 
Okin and Romer were absent. 

At 7:15 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To return to open session. 

At the beginning of the resumed open session, Chairman 
Healey assured the public and the press that only allowable mat- 
ters had been discussed in the executive session. He then said 
that, unless there was objection, the vote for the President woulc 
be taken by secret ballot. This was the procedure traditionally 
used by the Board for matters of great moment. Further, the legiti- 
macy of the Board's following this procedure had been upheld by 
Attorney General Brooke in 1965 in a formal opinion concerning the 
Board's voting by secret ballot in choosing the site of the Medi- 
cal School. 

There being no objection to a secret ballot, Chairman 
Healey then announced that the balloting would begin, that there 
were 20 Trustees eligible to vote in attendance and that the bal- 
loting would continue until one candidate received a clear majority 
of the votes cast. He emphasized that it would take eleven votes 
to elect the next President of the University. 

Chairman Healey appointed Trustee Kathleen Popko and 
Trustee Gavin Robertson to conduct and monitor the election. Bal-r 
lots were passed out and the Trustees proceeded to vote. After 
counting the ballots, Trustee Robertson announced that no candi- 
date had received a clear majority. Chairman Healey then instruct- 
ed the Board that in his view it was not only proper but mandatory 
that the exact vote be announced. Trustee Robertson then announced 
the votes as follows: Bromery 2, Gittell 7, Knapp 10, Vorenberg ]|. 

The Chairman then called for a second ballot. While 
voting was in progress, Chairman Healey took the occasion to com- 
pliment the Search Committee on the monumental job it had done. 
He emphasized that the members of the Committee had spent many 
hours above and beyond the line of duty on this search and that 
they deserved the heartfelt thanks of the whole University com- 
munity. 

Trustee Robertson then announced the results of the 
second ballot which were as follows: Gittell 8, Knapp 12. 

Trustee Breyer then introduced a motion that David C. 
Knapp be elected President of the University by unanimous vote to 
show that there was not division but only harmony on the Board. 
The motion was seconded, and it was unanimously 



-12- 



I 



I 



i 

I 



I 



Chairman Healey then thanked the Board for its coopers- 
:ion and on a motion made and seconded declared the meeting ad- 
journed at 7:22 p.m. 



I 



I 



VOTED 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

To elect David C. Knapp as 18th President of 
the University of Massachusetts. 




Dorothy Eiaftiel 
Assistant Secretary of the 
University 



-13- 



BOARD 
5/15/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

May 15, 1978; 4:17 p.m. 
Venetian Room 
Copley Plaza Hotel 
Copley Square 
Boston, Massachusetts 



Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey, President Patterson 
Trustees Anrig, Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Dion, Fielding, 
Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan 
Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle, Shearer, Spiller, Troy, Winthrop ; 
Secretary Parks representing Trustee Dukakis 



Absent Trustees: 



Trustees Dukakis, Okin and Romer 



Designees of Ex Officio Members : Mr. Barrus , Assistant Commis- 
sioner of Food and Agriculture; Mr. Callahan, Office of Commis- 
sioner of Education; Ms. Pinck,. Assistant Secretary of Educationap. 
Affairs 

The Executive Session of the Board was called to order 
by Chairman Healey at 4:17 p.m. on May 15, 1978. The Chairman 
designated Trustee Kassler as the Secretary Pro Tern for the 
meeting. 

Chairman Healey indicated that, unless any Trustee 
objected, he intended to permit the designees of the Ex Officio 
members to participate in the Executive Session discussions. 
There was no such objection from any Trustee. Chairman Healey 
thereafter cautioned the Board on the limitations of the Executiv 
Session and stated that he would rule out of order any statements 
and discussions which did not relate to the character and repu- 
tation of the candidates and the issue of granting tenure to an 
individual not already having tenure at the University. 

Trustee Breyer, as Chairman of the Search Committee, 
presented for the Trustees' consideration statements from various 
individuals relating to the character and reputation of the 
candidates and the possible granting of tenure. There then 
followed a general discussion by the Trustees concerning the 
above issues. 

At 7:15 p.m. and upon motion, the Board voted to adjourb. 
the Executive Session and return to Open Session. 

Respectfully submitted 




Secretary Pro Tern 



ADDENDUM 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

June 7, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 

Chancellor's Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Patterson; 



President-elect Knapp; Trustees Breyer, Burack, Dennis, Dion, 
Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, McNulty, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Robert- 
son, Romer, Sawtelle, Shearer, Spiller, Troy; Mr. Callahan repre- 
senting Trustee Anrig; Secretary Parks and Ms. Pinck representing 
Trustee Dukakis; Dr. Grady representing Trustee Fielding; Ms. Owens 
representing Trustee Okin; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Win- 
throp; Treasurer Brand; Assistant Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, 
recorder 

Absent Trustees : Trustees Crain, McNeil and Popko 



Central Administration: Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 



ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Ms. Hanson, 
Budget Director 

. UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Woodbury, Vice Chancellor for 
^Student Affairs; Professor Brogan, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 



for Administration and Finance; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Professor Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Dr. Goodman, Provost; Mr. Bice, Hospital Director; 
Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

Guest : Mr. Mahoney, Associate Alumni — UM/Amherst 

The meeting came to order at 2:05 p.m. Chairman Healey Approval of 

asked if there were any objections or changes to the minutes of Minutes of 

the two previous meetings of the Board. There were none and it Prior Meetings 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the May 3, 1978, meeting 
of the Board of Trustees. 

and further 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the May 15, 1978, Special 
Meeting of the Board of Trustees. 

Consideration of the minutes of the May 15 executive 
session of the Board was delayed pending the arrival of Trustee 
Kassler. 



Board 
6/7/78 

UM/Worcester — 
Revised By-laws 
of UMMC 
(Doc. T78-093) 



President ' s 
Comments 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The next item dealt with was the Revised By-laws of the 
University of Massachusetts Medical Center — UM/Worcester (Doc. 



T78-093). Mr. Bice said that Trustee concern had been expressed 
over two matters in the previous draft of the By-laws; that is, 
the lack of any mechanism to deal with physicians who repeatedly 
failed to complete medical records and the need to make explicit 
that patients would be treated humanely. The By-laws had been 
re-written to reflect these concerns. There was no discussion 
and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED ; To approve and adopt the revised By-laws for the 
University of Massachusetts Medical Center, 
Worcester, as detailed in Doc. T78-093. 

Chairman Healey then said that if there were no objec- 
tions he would appoint Trustee Dion to the Committee on Budget 
and Finance and the Committee on Student Affairs. There were no 
objections. 

The meeting then turned to the Presidential Agenda. 
President Patterson said that Associate Vice President for Analyti 
cal Studies, Gary Cooley, who had served long and faithfully in 
the Central Administration, was leaving to become Coordinator of 
Management Systems and Statewide Services in Higher Education for 
the state of Connecticut. 

In regard to the renovations of 100 Arlington Street, 
floors 12 and 13 were expected to be substantially completed by 
July 1; floors 7 and 8 by August 1. The lease on One Washington 
Mall would be terminated July 31, 1978, and efforts were underway 
to ensure that the move of the Central Administration would go as 
smoothly as possible. 

President Patterson then asked leave to make the follow- 
ing statement: 

"It is with great regret that we announce today the 
imminent departure of Katharine Hanson, the Director of the Budget 
and Associate Vice President for Management. 

"Mrs. Hanson joined the office of the President in 1973, 
coming to us from Boston University where she had obtained her 
M.B.A. degree and had worked with Boston University in institu- 
tional studies and planning. As Secretary of the University in 
that period, I came to know Kay well and to work closely with her, 
particularly in central office budget matters. 

"It is in the past six months as President that I have 
come to be very especially aware of and to deeply appreciate the 
services Kay Hanson has given to the University of Massachusetts. 
She has a broad understanding of the complex and sometimes arcane 
budgetary practices of the University and of the Commonwealth and 
a genuine commitment to excellence in this institution. And she 



-2- 



I 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

has brought to her office an extraordinary capacity for hard work, 
as well as a sense of humor, which makes the most difficult crises 
more bearable. 

"Kay Hanson leaves us on August 1 to take up new duties 
as Executive Director of the Consortium on Funding of Higher Edu- 
cation — the analytical and research arm of a group of some thirty 
distinguished private colleges and universities. I want person- 
ally to wish her well, and to thank her most heartily for six 
years of dedicated service to the University of Massachusetts. 
She has been a great help to all." 

The Board gave Ms. Hanson an ovation. 

Chancellor Bromery then said that the May 27 commence- 
ment at Amherst was the best he had seen in his eleven years at 
the University. Some 4,800 graduates attended as did 18,000 
parents and friends. The Governor for the first time greeted the 
graduates. It was a very good commencement. 



Board 
6/7/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Chancellor 's 
Comments 



Comments 



Chancellor Van Ummersen said that the recent Spring Arts UM/Boston — 
Festival at Boston had been very successful — over 7,000 people Chancellor's 
came to visit the campus and to attend the various performances 
that were offered. Honors convocations and commencement had gone 
very well. There were 1,156 graduates, of whom 27 received mas- 
ters' degrees. She thanks the Trustees who had attended the com- 
mencement for their support. 

The campus long-range planning committee, Chancellor 
Van Ummersen continued, was working on a statement regarding the 
direction the campus should take in the next five years in con- 
junction with the guidelines that had been recommended. A state- 
ment on the development of graduate programs had been completed 
and was ready to be forwarded to the President and the Trustee 
Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy in response to the 
recent vote of the Board to support the development of graduate 
education at Boston. 



The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
^Long-Range Planning. Trustee Marks said the Committee had met 
; and discussed the further development of goals and missions at 
■, Boston. It had been agreed that an effective way to proceed was 
to develop some general guidelines for the campus , within which 
more detailed planning could take place. To date the development 
of these guidelines had taken place in an aura remarkable for its 
harmony . 

The Possible Policy Guidelines for Further Development 
of UM/Boston Goals and Missions (Doc. T78-088A) , which had been 
sent by the President to the Trustees, he continued, represented 
a reasonable beginning and the framework of a structure on which 
to build specifics. The guidelines were based on three assump- 
tions about which there was general agreement — that UM/Boston was 



•3- 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Long- 
Range Planning 



UM/Boston — 
Policy Guide- 
lines for Fur- 
ther Development 
of Goals and 
Missions 
(Doc. T78-088A) 



Board 
6/7/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

a university level institution, that it was an urban institution, 
and that it had missions and goals that were distinct from those 
of other institutions and yet were parallel to, and in concert 
with, those of the other institutions. 

The guidelines were: that there should be a thorough 
assessment of the applicant pool, current as well as anticipated, 
for full-time entering freshmen; that the campus should increase 
its efforts to enlarge upper division enrollment to at least 60 
percent and possibly 70 percent of the FTE enrollment; that the 
campus should strive to increase part-time enrollment to 20-25 
percent of FTE enrollment; that the campus should explore with 
other public and private institutions possible complementary co- 
operative and consortial arrangements; that the campus should 
generate a development plan for new graduate programs as well as 
appropriate new undergraduate programs and concentrations; that a 
many-sided but coherent urban program should be developed; finally 
that emphasis should be placed on developing special programs and 
activities related to opportunities afforded by the presence of 
the Kennedy Library and the State Archives on Columbia Point. 

Trustee. Robertson noted that in the document regarding 
the guidelines, one of the possible courses of action in the ef- 
forts to increase part-time enrollment was to develop programs for 
specific populations; for example, the elderly. He asked if the 
campus in its efforts to increase such enrollment would be aware 
that its resources would not permit it to be all things to all 
people and would concentrate on things it could do well. Trustee 
Marks said implicit in the discussions to date and in the prelimi- 
nary guidelines was the realization that resources were limited 
and that priorities would have to be established. Once the guide- 
lines were approved, the next stage, that of settling on the spe- 
cifics, would be addressed. 

Mr. Parks said that at some point in the future he would 
like to know what the relationship was between the 8,800 ceiling 
on enrollment at Boston and the campus's urban mission. Trustee 
Marks said that over the years projected enrollments for the cam- 
pus had been reduced a number of times. The present projection 
was based on current and probable future realities. The Long- 
Range Planning Committee felt there was no point in developing 
guidelines for a massive enrollment which was very unlikely to ap- 
pear. Within the present ceiling the matter of resource alloca- 
tion could be addressed more clearly. There was no further dis- 
cussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : That the Board of Trustees approves in principle 
the seven preliminary guidelines presented in 
Trustee Document T78-088A for use in planning 
for the University of Massachusetts at Boston 
and concurs in principle with the enrollment plan- 
ning expectation of a maximum of 8,800 FTE students 
for 1978-1983 as stated therein. It is understood 



-A- 



I 



l 



I 



I 



I 



I 



Board 
6/7/78 

that said guidelines will be reflected in the 
planning report to be presented by the Chan- 
cellor to the Trustee Committee and the Presi- 
dent by September 15, 1978. 

The Board then heard the report of the Committee on Report of Corn- 
Audits. Trustee Dennis said the Committee was now in the process ! mittee on Audits 
of selecting an auditor for the hospital and group practice plan.} 
A number of bids had been received and these had been reduced to 
three. The Committee would soon receive an evaluation report on 
the three and a recommendation as to the preferred bidder. In 
addition, the Committee was continuing its review of past audits, 
Those relating to the Boston campus were all but complete, those 
from Amherst would be reviewed next. Finally, the process of 
selecting a Director of Auditing was continuing and it was hoped 
a candidate would be chosen by the end of the month. 

Chairman Healey then said this might be an appropriate Introduction of 
moment to introduce Ms. Owens, representative of Trustee Okin, New Representa- 
and Dr. Grady, representative of Trustee Fielding. He then rec- \ tives to the 
ognized Professor Brogan, who was attending his last Board meet- Board 
ing as the faculty representative from Amherst. Professor Brogan 
introduced his successor as faculty representative, Professor 
Stevenson Fletcher, and the newly elected Secretary of the Faculty 
Senate, Professor Harvey Kline. Professor Brogan then read a 
statement, which is appended to these minutes. [See Addendum.] 

Chairman Healey thanked Professor Brogan for his assis- 
tance to the Board during his tenure. With reference to Profes- 
sor Brogan 's comments he added that, while the Trustees did not 
indulge in breast beating at their own meetings, over the years 
the Trustees had more than once worn out their welcome at budget 
hearings before the Legislature. The Board as a whole was com- 
mitted to doing so in the future. He said he hoped the faculty 
would understand the problems faced by the Trustees in defending 
the budget proposal. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy. Trustee Troy said that the Com- 
mittee had met on May 17 and had first discussed Establishment 
of Ph.D. Program in the Medical Sciences — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78- 
090). He reminded the Trustees that the Board at its last meet- 
ing had voted to approve the program in principle. The costs of 
the program would be modest, and largely administrative, because 
the faculty to teach the program was already in place. All good 
medical schools offer similar programs for the simple reason that 
it would be impossible to attract highly competent faculty with- 
out having one. As was perhaps known, one of the few criticisms 
in the latest accreditation report on the Medical School was the 
lack of such a doctoral program. 

Without discussion, it was moved, seconded and 



-5- 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Faculty 
and Educational 
Policy 

UM/Worcester — 
Establishment of 
Ph.D. Program in 
Medical Sciences 
(Doc. T78-090) 



Board 
6/7/78 



Salary Policy 
for Academic 
Administrators 
(Doc. T78-070A) 



Policy on Leaves 
for Academic 
Administrators 
(Doc. T78-071A) 



Policy on Named 
Professorships 
(Doc. T78-069A) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : To approve the establishment of a Ph.D. program 
in the Medical Sciences at the University of 
Massachusetts Medical School, as detailed in 
Trustee Document T78-090, said proposal to be 
submitted to the Board of Higher Education for 
its review and approval, to be implemented in 
September, 1979. 

The Trustees then discussed Policies on Salaries and 
Leaves for Academic Administrators , and Policy on Named Profes- 
sorships (Doc. T78-070A/-071A/-069A) . Trustee Troy said that 
these matters had been discussed jointly and separately by the 
Faculty and Educational Policy Committee and the Budget and 
Finance Committee. This was an area where the University needed 
clearer and more definite policies. 

In the matter of Salary Policy for Academic Adminis- 
trators (Doc. T78-070A) , Trustee Troy said the proposed policy 
covered three types of appointments — individuals already on the 
faculty who were appointed to an administrative position, indi- 
viduals appointed to an academic administrative position from 
the outside, and individuals who held an administrative position 
for whom no prior determination of faculty salary had been made. 
In the discussion which followed, Trustee Robertson suggested 
several changes in the supporting document. These were agreed to P 

The meeting then discussed Policy on Leaves for Aca- 
demic Administrators (Doc. T78-071A) . In the somewhat spirited 
discussion which followed it became clear that a number of Trust*- 
ees opposed the proposed policy on principle and found particu- 
larly disturbing the proposal to grant leaves to administrators 
who intended to return to the University as administrators . 
Other Trustees supported the proposed policy at least in part. 
The outcome of the discussion was an agreement to reconsider the 
matter at a later date. 

The Trustees then considered Policy on Named Professor- 
ships (Doc. T78-069A) . Trustee Troy said two categories of pro- 
fessorships were being proposed — University Professorships, which 
would be funded by equal contributions from each campus , the in- 
cumbents to have University-wide responsibilities which would be 
assigned to them by the President; and Named Professorships, as- 
sociated with and funded by a given campus, which could be as- 
signed to a specific college or department of the campus. In the 
past, Named Professorships had included Commonwealth Professor- 
ships; this title was now being phased out, as it had become 
largely honorific. 

The positions proposed could be awarded with tenure or 
for a limited non-renewable term. Also being recommended was the 
establishment of Named Visiting Assistant Professorships to at- 
tract outstanding young faculty members. 



-6- 



1 



1 



l 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The Named Professorships would be created by the Board 
on recommendation of the President. The qualifications for the 
professorships were outstanding distinction as a scholar or pro- 
fessional in the candidate's field. In considering the estab- 
lishment of a Named Professorship the President would consult 
with a University-wide standing committee made up of three fac- 
ulty representatives from each campus. 

There was no further discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED: To adopt the policy on salaries for academic ad- 
ministrators as contained in Document T78-070A, 
as amended. 

and further 

VOTED : To adopt the policy on named professorships as 
contained in Document T78-069A. 

The final item to be dealt with, Trustee Troy said, 
was 1978 Tenure Awards — UM/Boston, UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-089) . 
Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To concur in the President's award of tenure to 

those faculty members at UM/Boston and UM/Worcester 
named in Trustee Document T78-089 , effective Sep- 
tember, 1978. 

Trustee Kassler, who had served as Secretary Pro Tem 
of the May 15 executive session, had joined the meeting and 
Chairman Healey called for consideration of the Minutes of the 
May 15, 1978 executive session. Trustee Kassler then moved, and 
it was seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the executive session of 
the Board of Trustees held on May 15, 1978. 



and further 



VOTED 



That the minutes of the executive session of the 
Board of Trustees held on May 15, 1978 be incor- 
porated in the minutes of this meeting and be re- 
leased forthwith. 



Chairman Healey said that it was now in order to deal 
with a formal personnel action with regard to Dr. Knapp . Trustee 
Troy suggested that the vote on this matter be a roll call vote. 
There was no objection to this. Chairman Healey reminded the 
Trustee Representatives present that this being a personnel mat- 
ter they were not allowed to vote. Mr. Parks said that Trustee 
Dukakis had asked that the reconrd show that were he present he 



-7- 



Board 
6/7/78 



UM/Boston, 
UM/Worcester- 
1978 Tenure 
Awards 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
May 15 Execu- 
tive Session 
of Board 



Personnel 
Actions 



Board 
6/7/78 



Expression of 
Thanks to Search 
Committee Staff 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

would abstain from voting on this action. Without further dis- 
cussion it was moved, seconded and on roll call 

VOTED : To appoint David C. Knapp to the position of 

President, University of Massachusetts, effective 
September 1, 1978, with compensation to consist 
of a salary of fifty-eight thousand dollars 
($58,000) per annum and a housing allowance in 
lieu of providing a President's house in the sum 
of eight hundred dollars ($800) per month, and 
to the position of Professor of Political Science 
with tenure, as set forth in Doc. T78-098. 

Trustees Breyer, Burack, Dennis, Dion, Kassler, Krum- 
siek, Marks, McNulty, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Robertson, Saw- 
telle, Shearer, Spiller and Troy voted for the motion, as did 
Chairman Healey and President Patterson. Trustees Anrig, Crain, 
Dukakis, Fielding, McNeil, Okin, Popko and Winthrop were absent. 

Chairman Healey said it might be of interest to note 
that Dr. Knapp ' s salary at Cornell was $59,500. 

Chairman Healey said that another personnel action, one 
regarding former President Wood, had to be taken. The action 
would designate Mr. Wood a Commonwealth Professor of Government 
effective July 1, 1978. His salary on an annual basis was 
$51,789; converted to an academic year this became $41,432. Mr. 
Wood had agreed to take his 38 accumulated vacation days at the 
lower salary level. Without discussion it was moved, seconded 
and 

VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as set forth in 
Trustee Document T78-083A. 

The last personnel action had to do with the proposed 
extension of the appointment of Vice President Kaludis . Presi- 
dent Patterson said he had discussed this matter with Dr. Knapp, 
and he had agreed this should be done. Without discussion, it 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED ; To concur with the President's action in extending 
the appointment of George Kaludis as Vice President 
for Management and Professor A of the University of 
Massachusetts from July 1, 1978 to September 2, 
1978 as set forth in Doc. T78-095. 

Chairman Healey recognized Trustee Breyer, who said he 
wished to move that the Board formally thank Professor Dorothy 
Marshall for the extraordinary job she did in administering the 
Presidential Search Committee process and that thanks also be 
extended to Donna Milley. There was consensus on this motion 
and Chairman Healey agreed to inform Professor Marshall of this 
action by letter. 

-8- 



I 



I 



» 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



I 



Board 
6/7/78 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Stu- 
dent Affairs 



UM/ Amherst — 



I 



I 



The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Student Affairs. Trustee Shearer said the first item on the 
agenda at the Committee's May 30 meeting was the matter of the 
Housing and Dining Policy — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-092). In dis- 
cussing possible changes in the mandatory policies, a number of 
concerns had been raised — primarily the degree of financial risk \ Housing and 
involved in allowing juniors and seniors to live off campus if Dining Policy 
they wished to do so, and the possible impact of this on the town! (Doc. T78-092) 
of Amherst and the surrounding communities. In the course of the 
meeting, word was received that the selectmen of Amherst had no 
stated opinion on this proposed change. The town's main concern 
was the proper maintenance of housing sites. Trustee Romer said 
this matter was obviously of importance to the town of Amherst. 
The 1970 census listed the population of Hampshire County as 
125,000; of these about 50,000 were students, staff and their 
families at UM/Amherst. Clearly the University had a great impacj: 
on the demand for housing in the area. Equally obvious was the 
importance of the 11,000 bed spaces in the residence hall system 
to the available housing stock. The town's interest was not in 
the rules and regulations, but in having the dormitories continue 
to be part of the housing stock and that they be fully occupied. 

The town could see two possible dangers — a long term 
decline in the number of beds on campus, or short term fluctua- 
tions in the occupancy rates. Either could have severe and ad- 
verse impact on the residents of the town. University studies 
of locations of residences of students and employees show a 
strong inverse relationship between income and the distances of 
the residence from the campus. Those with larger incomes live 
closest to the campus. Those with lower incomes (this included 
most of the students who lived off campus) lived outside the town 
and its immediate environs. Thus, the loss of the University 
housing stock would mainly affect lower income people by making 
it even more difficult for them to live in the immediate vicinity 
of the campus. 

In 1975, when the University last considered its resi- 
dence requirements, the town had expressed its major concerns to 
the Chancellor. These were: the effect any change would have on 
competition for housing; the effect on traffic and transportation, 
the effect on development and the environment; and finally the 
impact on Amherst neighborhoods of students banding together and 
sharing single family homes. These continued to be major con- 
cerns of the town. 

In short, while the town had no objection to the change > 
and while there did not seem to be any significant conflict be- 
tween the town's goals and those of the University in this par- 
ticular instance, the town urged that the University, in develop- 
ing its policies on housing, always take into account the needs 
of the community of which it is such a large part. 



-9- 



Board 
6/7/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Shearer said the Committee had discussed the 
impact of the proposed change on Amherst and other communities 
and had, in fact, asked that those communities which might be 
affected be informed of the University's actions in such matters. 
Ms. Owens asked why there was no reference to the physically 
handicapped in the list of those eligible for exemption to the 
mandatory policy. Mr. Woodbury said that the University always 
had exempted students in special cases, including the handicapped 
There was no further discussion and it was moved, seconded and 



I 



VOTED 



and further 



VOTED: 



That pursuant to the recommendations set forth 
in Doc. T78-092, effective the fall semester 
1978, all full-time undergraduate students 
(enrolled for twelve semester credits or more) 
on the Amherst campus be required to live in on- 
campus residence halls during their freshman 
and sophomore years. Exemption from this re- 
quirement may be granted to the following: 
married students, veterans, students living in 
and commuting from the home of their parent (s) 
or guardian (s) while in attendance at the Uni- 
versity, and resident members of fraternities 
or sororities at the Amherst campus. 



That pursuant to the recommendations set forth 
in Doc. T78-092, effective the fall semester 
1978, all full-time undergraduate students 
(enrolled for twelve semester credits or more) 
on the Amherst campus be required to subscribe 
to a boarding plan in the campus dining commons 
during their freshman and sophomore years. 
Exemption from this requirement may be granted 
to the following: married students, veterans, 
students living in and commuting from the home 
of their parent (s) or guardian(s) while in at- 
tendance at the University, and resident members 
of fraternities or sororities. 



Trustee Shearer said the Committee had also discussed 
a proposed increase in the student activities tax at Amherst. On 
receiving assurances from the student Trustees that the increase 
had been approved by the students, it had been recommended to the 
Budget and Finance Committee. The most pleasant part of the 
meeting was the report on Health Services at UM/Amherst. The 
Health Services had been visited by an accreditation committee 
and had been rated as being among the best in the country. 
Trustee Dion expressed concern over the fact that while students 
could see a nurse-practitioner promptly, seeing a doctor often 
took several weeks. There had also been discussion of the pos- 
sibility of the Health Services working more closely with the 
state Department of Mental Health. 



-10- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Budget and Finance. Trustee Marks, reporting in the absence of 
Trustee Crain, said the Committee had held a long meeting on 
May 30 and had discussed in detail a number of items, the first 
being End-of-the-Year Fund Transfers (Doc. T78-091) . These 
transfers were an annual exercise and were unexceptional. With- 
out discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the subsidiary account transfers as de- 
tailed in Doc. T78-091. 

The next item for which the Committee sought approval 
was also a routine matter. Without discussion it was moved, 
seconded and 



VOTED 



To approve the following allocations from the 
Trustee Trust Fund Interest Reserve (account 2- 
05905) to University Administration account 
2-05510. 



FY78 For collective bargaining-legal 



services 



$39,000 



I 



FY79 For liability insurance payments $63,023 



FY79 For One Washington Mall rent 



$13,591 



Board 
6/7/78 

Report of Com- 
mittee on 
Budget and 
Finance 

End-of-Year 
Fund Transfers 
(Doc. T78-091) 



Trustee Trust 
Fund Interest 
Reserve Fund 
Transfers 



UM/Amherst — 
Increase in 
Student Ac- 
tivities Fee 



I 



UM/ Worcester — 
Day Care Pro- 
gram Fees FY79 



Trustee Marks said the next item had been approved by 
the students and, as had been pointed out, the Student Affairs 
Committee. It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : That effective July 1, 1978, the annual fee of 
$72.00 be established as the Student Activities 
Fee for University undergraduate students on the 
Amherst campus, including $1.50 for the Distin- 
guished Visitors Program. 

Trustee Marks said the next vote had to do with the 
Day Care Program at UM/Worcester . The Committee had been given 
a detailed report on the Center and had been satisfied that the 
facilities, finances and the intent of the program — to make the 
center available to students and others who were less well paid— 
was being adhered to. It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : That approval of the fee schedule for the Univer- 
sity of Massachusetts Medical Center Day Care Pro- 
gram as set forth in Doc. T78-065 be and hereby is 
extended through FY 1979. 

TrustEe Marks said the next item was a mechanical device Continuing 
which was employed each year to enable the University to function \ Resolution 
from the beginning of the fiscal year until such time as the 



-11- 



Board 
6/7/78 



UM/Wor ces ter — 
Funding of 
Group Practice 



Report on Small 
Business /Minor- 
ity Purchasing 



Executive Ses- 
sion 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Board approved that year's operating budget. This was necessary 
as the Board did not normally meet in July — the beginning month 
of the fiscal year. It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : That the President be authorized to approve and 
adopt the policies and procedures governing the 
expenditure of state and non-state funds by the 
three campuses, the Office of the President and 
the Institute for Governmental Services from 
July 1, 1978 until such time as the Board of 
Trustees adopts the Operating Budget for Fiscal 
Year 1979. The approval of expenditure of said 
funds shall be consistent with the applicable 
state statutes governing the FY79 appropriation 
and in accordance with Trustee policy. 

Trustee Marks said the next vote on the funding of the 
Group Practice needed a word of explanation. Mr. Kaludis said 
that the Chancellor at Worcester had been asked to give a full 
report on the operation of the Group Practice Trust Fund. When 
the Fund had been established, the Board had approved start up 
funding in the form of loans from the Amherst campus. The final 
repayment of these loans was due June 30, and the Board was being 
asked to delay its review until a definitive report could be pre- 
pared. It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To defer final disposition of the trust fund ar- 
rangement between the Amherst and Worcester cam- 
puses (Doc. T76-098) from June 30, 1978 to no 
later than September 13, 1978 to allow full evalu- 
ation and review of the status of the Group Prac- 
tice Plan Trust Fund. 

Trustee Marks concluded by noting that the Committee 
had received a report on Small Business/Minority Purchasing . The 
Committee had been pleased with the pace, the comprehensiveness 
and the intent of the University in this area. 

Chairman Healey said he would entertain a motion to 
enter executive session in order to consider collective bargain- 
ing matters. The Board would reconvene in open session in order 
to discuss the search process for the Chancellorships at Amherst 
and Boston and to hear communications to the Board if there were 
any. At 4:10 p.m. it was moved, seconded and on roll call 



VOTED 



To enter executive session. 



Trustees Breyer, Burack, Dennis, Dion, Kassler, Krum- 
siek, Marks, McNulty, O'Sullivan, Robertson, Sawtelle, Shearer, 
Spiller and Troy voted for the motion, as did Chairman Healey, 
President Patterson, Mr. Barrus , Dr. Grady, Ms. Owens and Ms. 
Pinck. Trustees Anrig, Crain, McNeil, Morgenthau and Popko were 
absent . 

-12- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

At 5:06 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To reconvene in open session. 

Speaking for the Ad Hoc Committee on Labor Relations, 
Trustee Krumsiek moved and it was seconded and 



VOTED: 



and further 



VOTED : 



and further 



VOTED : 



and further 



VOTED : 



I 



Board 
6/7/78 



To approve the Agreement between the University of 
Massachusetts and University Staff Association 
Chapter (USA) /MTA/NEA— UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-096) ; 
provided, however, that no wage increases as spe- 
cified in said Agreement shall become effective un- 
til the Governor has transferred sufficient funds 
to the University's maintenance accounts to meet 
the cost of the salary increases provided by said 
Agreement. 



To approve the Agreement between the University of 
Massachusetts and the Maintenance Trades Council of 
New England, AFL-CIO— UM/Boston (Doc. T78-097); 
provided, however, that no wage increases as spe- 
cified in said agreement shall become effective un- 
til the Governor has transferred sufficient funds 
to the University's maintenance accounts to meet 
the cost of the salary increases provided by said 
Agreement . 



To authorize the President to approve the Agree- 
ments between the University of Massachusetts and 
the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 
Local 432, Units A and B, at UM/Amherst and the 
University of Massachusetts Patrolman's Association 
at UM/Boston; provided, however, that no wage in- 
creases as specified in said Agreements shall be- 
come effective until the Governor has transferred 
sufficient funds to the University's maintenance 
accounts to meet the cost of the salary increases 
provided by said Agreements. 



Because of the proximity of the end of the fiscal 
year, the fact that the next regular meeting of the 
Board of Trustees is not scheduled until August, 
and in order to encourage the continuation of good 
faith collective bargaining with the faculty and 
other University employees, the Trustee Ad Hoc Labor 
Relations Committee is hereby authorized and 



-13- 



Report of Ad Hoc 
Committee on 
Labor Relations 

• UM/Amherst and 

i UM/Boston — 
Approval of 
Collective Bar- 
gaining Agree- 
ments 

(Doc. T78-096, 
T78-097) 



Delegation of 
Authority to 
President to 
approve Certain 
Agreements 



Board 
6/7/78 



Presentation by 
Representative 
of UMass Asso- 
ciate Alumni 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

empowered on behalf of the Board of Trustees to 
participate in coordinated collective bargaining 
with other segments of the Commonwealth's system 
of public higher education and faculty union repre- 
sentatives, to take such action relative thereto 
as it deems appropriate, and to approve and imple- 
ment compensation adjustments for those employees 
with whom the University is currently engaged in 
collective bargaining, subject to the availability 
of funds. 

Trustee Krumsiek concluded his report by thanking all those 
who had worked so hard to conclude these agreements. 

Chairman Healey then recognized Mr. William Mahoney of the 
UMass Alumni Association. Mr. Mahoney said he wished to preface 
his statement by stressing that the Alumni Association was very 
pleased with the selection of Dr. Knapp as President. He then 
made the following statement: 

"The 76,000 alumni of the University from the campuses 
at Amherst, Boston, and Worcester wish to thank Chairman Healey 
and the Board of Trustees for this opportunity to speak to you. 
Our purpose is to address the subject of the relationship between 
the alumni and the rest of the University — particularly our re- 
lationship with the Board of Trustees. 

"Alumni in the past have been invited to participate in 
those University activities, such as reunions, homecomings, 
groundbreakings, and the like, which are notably social or senti- 
mental to the University, and have responded handsomely, and in 
a manner that promises to exceed the fondest expectations of all 
involved. On rare occasions we have been asked to present the 
University's position to our legislators, and these efforts have 
for the most part resulted in legislative action favorable to the 
University. 

"To date we have apparently been unsuccessful in convey 
ing to the Board of Trustees our real wishes and intentions. It 
is fair to state that our interest in the University and its wel- 
fare parallels that of the Board of Trustees, the Administration, 
the faculty, and the students — who eventually become alumni. Our 
wish is to be as directly involved as these other groups in mat- 
ters concerned with the welfare and advancement of the interests 
of the University. It is our intention to become more active and 
visible in these matters. 

"Our lack of status relative to the decision-making 
process in matters concerning the University was underscored dur- 
ing the recent presidential search. On the occasion of the an- 
nouncement of President Wood's resignation the alumni expressed 
in several letters their interest in being involved in the search 



-14- 



I 



I 



i 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

process. None of this correspondence was acknowledged, which in- 
dicated the attitude of the Board of Trustees toward the alumni. 
After much persistence we were granted permission to interview 
the five final candidates. That the hodge-podge arrangement 
which was provided was absurd, and at best a measure of tokenism, 
became apparent when input offered by the alumni was not even 
considered at the Trustees meeting on May 15. It is important to 
note that even though there was a feeling that we were simply be- 
ing mollified, all of those involved dutifully and eagerly sacri- 
ficed their time and effort, which included for some driving from 
Boston to Amherst for 8:00 a.m. appointments. It is an under- 
statement to say that our reaction to this lack of consideration 
for our effort and interest is one of disappointment. 

"Over the past few weeks we have attempted to focus our 
feelings in a positive direction. We have come here today to in- 
form you of our feelings and advise you of our intentions. We 
should like to address the Board of Trustees again at their first 
meeting in the fall of 1978, at which time we will present speci- 
fic proposals for the Board's consideration. Generally we shall 
seek a vehicle to enable us to participate more directly on the 
Board of Trustees level. On future search activities we urge the 
Trustees to insure alumni representation with full committee 
status . 

"Finally it seems important to point to the obvious. 
The alumni of this or any university represent the end product of 
the collective efforts of the Board of Trustees, the Administra- 
tion, and the faculty. The University of Massachusetts is our 
University. Long after you have served as Trustees, we shall 
continue to be alumni. The future course of the University is of 
special concern to us. We hope you are proud of the end-product 
you and your predecessors have fostered, and will welcome the 
alumni as a valuable resource to be utilized for the benefit of 
the University in the future." 

Trustee Spiller said he was one of perhaps three 
Trustees who was an alumnus of the University. While he once had 
been active in the Alumni Association this was no longer the case 
As a Trustee he had made several efforts to interest the Associa- 
tion in the affairs of the Board, all to no avail. Suggestions 
that Trustees be invited to meet with the Board of the Alumni 
Association had been ignored, as had suggestions that the Alumni 
magazine give reports on Board meetings. He said he had yet to 
see any Alumni representatives appear before the Legislature at 
the budget hearings. This was an area where not all the fault 
lay on one side. 

Trustee Breyer said he wished to respond to Mr. 
Mahoney's remarks about the Presidential search. The search com- 
mittee had met with the Alumni and had solicited their views on 
the various candidates, so that it was not correct to say that 



-15- 



Board 
6/7/78 



Board 
6/7/78 



Search Process 
for Chancellor- 
ships 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the Alumni had no input into the process. There had been a foul- 
up prior to one of the meetings with the candidates so that the 
Alumni missed one out of ten such meetings. 

Trustee Breyer said that there were feelings among the 
Alumni that he hadn't known about. No one called the search com- 
mittee, which had Alumni representatives as members. This sug- 
gested to him that he perhaps should have been the one to call; 
on the other hand, on the Alumni's part, there was no organiza- 
tion set up so that people could be called. Obviously, there 
were communication barriers which should be brought down. The 
Board and the Alumni Association should set up some kind of 
mechanism so that if there was a breakdown in communications, or 
either side was disturbed by some action of the other, there 
would be an automatic channel of communication. He suggested 
that either the University staff or the Alumni Association, prior 
to the next Board meeting, work out a mechanism which would en- 
sure that breakdowns did not occur. The Alumni Association, as 
well as the University staff, had a responsibility to see that 
this happened. 

Mr. Mahoney said he agreed with much of what Trustees 
Spiller and Breyer had said. There had been a lack of communica- 
tion. What was needed now was a joint effort to solve this prob- 
lem. This was a family affair and the Alumni did have something 
to offer to the University. Trustee Breyer said this was beyond 
dispute; the Alumni Association was the greatest asset the Uni- 
versity had. Chairman Healey thanked Mr. Mahoney for his presen- 
tation. 

Chairman Healey said there was a final item to be con- 
sidered — the search process for the chancellorships at Amherst 
and Boston. This had been put on the agenda at the request of 
Trustee Kassler. Trustee Dennis asked leave to interrupt. He 
said he was aware that there was a need to establish a search 
committee for a Chancellor at Boston; however he was unaware that 
there was such a need at Amherst. Trustee Kassler said that the 
Trustees had received copies of a letter from Chancellor Bromery 
to Chairman Healey in which the Chancellor had said that he was 
placing his name in consideration for the Presidency, and that, 
if he were not chosen as President, he would resign as Chancellor 
as of June, 1979. 

The ensuing discussion centered around several issues. 
Was the Chancellor's letter conditional or unequivocal? Was it 
an obligat6ry courtesy to free the hands of the incoming Presi- 
dent, whoever that might be? As a result of the discussion the 
President was asked to contact Chancellor Bromery on the subject 
of his present intentions and, in turn, to convey these inten- 
tions to the Board. 

Trustee Kassler then suggested that Chairman Healey 
be asked to set in motion those actions necessary to establish 

-16- 



I 



i 

l 



r 



» 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

however many Chancellors' search committees were found to be nec- 
essary. Chairman Healey agreed to do this. 

There was no further business to come before the Board 
and the meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 



Dorothy Eich#l 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



Board 
6/7/78 




•17- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



I 



^■l. « * £ m Addendum 

Statement to the Board of Trustees 

by the Faculty Senate Delegate 

June Meeting, 1978 

I have recently completed my thirty-eighth year of college and university 
teaching in an unusual variety of institutions, including two small private 
liberal arts institutions — Illinios College and Franklin and Marshall, a state 
supported military college — The Citadel, as well as one private university — 
Princeton, one private-public mixed — Syracuse, and two state universities. For 
most of a twenty-nine year stretch of that time I have been active in academic 
governance, six years as chairman of one rapidly growing department, five years 
of a still more rapidly growing one at Amherst, and on numerous councils and com- 
mittees, and repeatedly on senates or similar campus governance bodies with other 
names . 

I have also published a number of articles on academic governance. One of 
these, which appeared a decade ago in the Journal of Higher Education , has a title 
indicating the result of my experience to that time: "Faculty Power: Pretense 
or Reality?" My conclusion in it was that faculty power is far more pretense than 
reality. That is still my opinion. 

Professors are moved to support collective bargaining for a variety of motives. 
Mine is a desire to strengthen the role of faculty in governance. While AAUP was 
torn by dissent over moving in this direction, I accepted an invitation from a 
former student at another University I served, one who had become a professional 
administrator of the National Education Association, to serve on a representative 
committee to help that Association decide whether it would sponsor collective 
bargaining in higher education. I chaired the committee, which after extended 
study, recommended to NEA's General Assembly that it should, and I accepted the 
charter of the new affiliate established for that purpose. 

Although I then withdrew rather than commit the time required into the actual 
nationwide organization, not unnaturally — in view of this background — I have 
supported collective bargaining for the faculty in this University. My chief motive 
has continued to be to strengthen the faculty position in University governance. 

I have thus detailed my background so that the Board may not fall into the 
mistake of believing that all of those supporting collective bargaining by the 
faculty are young radicals inexperienced in faculty governance and interested 
only in money. 

Our University has the most satisfactory system of governance of all the 
institutions I have served — on paper, but I believe that if you would poll the 
faculty, you would find that a large majority of those responding would inform you 
that it operates unsatisfactorily in fact. If you were to ask my opinion as to 
why the system does not operate to the satisfaction of the faculty, I would answer 
very simply: because it is a one-sided agreement. One party decides what the 
terms of this agreement mean, has the power, and not infrequently exercises 
it through its administrative agents, to waive any provisions it finds incon- 
venient to carry out, and retains to itself the right of altering or canceling 
the agreement at any time without receiving the assent of the other party. 

Let me remind the Board that last summer, when the Rules Committee of our 
Faculty Senate appeared before you at the direction of that Senate to inform you 
that our Provost had committed violations of that governance system which you had 



1 



f 



» 



L 



-2- 



officially approved, the Committee members were told that the Board had been 
assured that the provisions of governance were being carried out. Thus in 
effect you informed the faculty that our opinion as to whether the provisions were 
being violated was of little consequence if your administrative agents gave you 
a contrary opinion. 

And yet, midway through the next academic year, these administrative agents 
themselves had to remove the Provost for the very kind of arbitrary behavior against 
which the faculty were complaining. 

Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, I have sat in on your meetings this year 
as an observer for the Faculty Senate. I have been favorably impressed by the 
dedication and hard work which you are putting into your service on the Board 
and its several committees. However, a faculty member sitting in on your meetings 
cannot help noticing that very little is said in them about two of the issues of 
most pressing concern to the faculty. 

The first of these is the devastating impact of inflation on faculty salaries 
held down by level funding. That is not my primary concern today, and I am well 
aware that it is imperfectly under your control; but it is bearing down hard, es- 
pecially on younger faculty members at lower salaries and with growing families to 
take care of. It is causing resignations of superior faculty members, especially 
in areas of greatest student demand, and is thus lowering quality of instruction. 

The other chief faculty concern is the matter of governance. Let me empha- 
size that there has never been any expectation on the part of the faculty that 
negotiations could alter the ultimate authority of the Board. That is established 
by law. All the faculty expects is that faculty participation in the present system 
of governance, with some modifications, be made as binding upon your administrative 
agents as it already is upon the faculty. After all present faculty participation 
is essentially that which is traditional — at least in theory — to the best 
governed institutions of higher education, and moreover, it has been approved 
by the Board after careful study. 

I am gratified to learn that very considerable progress has been made toward 
that objective during the last several bargaining sessions, and I trust that this 
process will be continued to a conclusion satisfactory to both parties in the near 
future. 

Mr. Chairman, I do intend to distribute to members of the Board some written 
remarks as to why academic governance is of more crucial importance to faculty 
members than is readily understandable to non-academics. On this occasion, I have 
only wanted to emphasize that it is so crucial that no satisfactory internal relation- 
ships can be maintained within a University without a satisfactory system of faculty 
governance. With that, I thank you for your patience in hearing me out and wish 
you Godspeed in your continuing deliberations. 



Howard 0. Brogan 

Commonwealth Professor of English 



HOB/c/w 

Retyped 6/29/78 cdk 



T 



t 



» 



I 



ATTENDANCE; 



I 



I 



Mr. Knapp, President-elect; Trustees Burack, Crain, Dennis, Dion, 
Krumsiek, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle, Shearer, and 
Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Mr. Parks repre- 
senting Trustee Dukakis; Dr. Grady representing Trustee Fielding; 
Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop; Treasurer Brand; Mr. 
Miller, recorder 

Trustee Absent : Trustees Breyer, Kassler, Marks, McNeil, Morgen- 
thau, Okin, Romer, and Spiller 

Central Administration: Mr. Kaludis, Vice President for Manage- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

August 2, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 

Chancellor's Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Trustees and Trustee Staff: Chairman Healey; President Patterson; 



ment; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. Searson 
General Counsel 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and 
Provost; Mr. Beatty, Director of Office of Budgeting and Institu- 
tional Studies; Professor Friedman, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston: Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 



for Academic Affairs and Provost; Professor Martin, Faculty Repre- 
sentative 

UM/Worcester: Chancellor Bulger; Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



Health Affairs; Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting came to order at 2:30 p.m. Chairman 
Healey asked if there were any additions or changes to the minutes 
of the previous meeting of the Board. There were none and without 
discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the June 7, 1978, 
meeting of the Board of Trustees. 

Chairman Healey then said that the Board would enter 
into executive session on completion of the regular business be- 
fore the Board in order to discuss pending litigation as well as 
a report from Trustee Krumsiek on the status of the collective 
bargaining process. He then called on the President for his com- 
ments. 



President Patterson said that the Central Administration President's 



was now in the new quarters at 250 Stuart Street. The renovation 
had been successful and he urged the Trustees who had not done so 
to visit the new offices. The move had gone smoothly, and for this 
he thanked the staff, particularly Ms. Tirado and Mr. Weston, who 
had put in endless hours during the move. 



Comments 



Board 
8/2/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

In the matter of the FY 1979 Budget, President Patter- 
son said that the Legislature had approved an overall budget of 
$121,830,015 for the University. This represented a 10.5 percent 
increase over FY 1978. The budget for the Central Administration 
was up 1 percent; that for Amherst, 9.5 percent; Boston, 10 per- 
cent; and the Medical School, 11 percent. The educational support 
appropriation for the Teaching Hospital was down 14 percent. The 
appropriation act, he noted, included separate funds to cover part 
of anticipated collective bargaining agreements, and provisions 
were made for additional funds. All in all, President Patterson 
said, the University had done well in the budget process. 

Chairman Healey said that the Governor should be made 
aware that the Executive Office of Educational Affairs this year 
had been much more understanding of the needs of the University. 
He expressed his thanks to Mr. Parks for this. Also, each time 
the budget went through, all of the Trustees should recognize the 
very important contribution of Joe Cass, Executive Assistant to 
the President. He was the most effective person in education in 
dealing with the Legislature and the Administration. Mr. Cass 
knew not only all aspects of the budget, he was aware of all legis 
lation affecting the University. The Chairman said Mr. Cass was 
an invaluable person and that all Trustees should acknowledge this 

President Patterson then reminded the Trustees that 
they had received a report prepared by Kendrick Smith entitled 
"Financial Development, Alumni Organization and Public Relations" 
This report was one outgrowth of discussions he had held with 
Trustee Marks and other members of the Long-Range Planning Commit- 
tee concerning the need to become more active in these areas. 
President Patterson said it was his hope that the general subjects 
in the report remain on the agenda of the Committee. 

President Patterson said he had prepared a discussion 
paper on intercollegiate athletic policy, which the Trustees would 
soon receive. This was a matter which the Board had last dealt 
with in 1957 and the Trustees might want to reconsider intercol- 
legiate athletics now and in the future. 

Noting that this would be his last official appearance 
before the Board, President Patterson said that in the months of 
his tenure several things had been accomplished. During that time! 
the Board of Trustees had displayed great energy and unity with 
results that would continue the forward momentum of the University! 
The long-range planning process , which in a sense had been abro- 
gated, had been reinstituted and reestablished very effectively by 
the Board. Evidence of this was Board approval, for the first 
time, of a graduate education policy for the three campuses. 

Another accomplishment was the development of a plan 
to renovate the physical plant at Amherst, particularly the resi- 
dence halls. This had been done under the aegis of Vice President 
Kaludis. With the cooperation of the several Trustee Committee 



-2- 



l 



f 



I 



I 



! 



\ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairmen involved, there had been definite progress in capital out 
lay planning and in relationships with the Building Authority. 

While there was yet a distance to go, President Patter- 
son continued, progress had been made in clarifying the missions 
and goals of the Boston campus. The University, particularly the 
Boston campus, was now making a concerted effort to articulate 
with the community colleges. Both the Faculty and Educational 
Policy Committee and the Long-Range Planning Committee had ad- 
dressed the problems of continuing/extended-day education at the 
University. 

President Patterson said all of the items mentioned 
were on the plus side and that there were items on the other side 
of the ledger. He concluded by noting that he felt that the eight 
months had been good ones and thanked the University management 
team — particularly the Vice Presidents and Chancellors and their 
staffs. 

Chairman Healey, speaking on behalf of the Board, said 
that the transition period could not have been handled more ef- 
fectively than it had been by President Patterson. It was dif- 
ficult to operate as an interim officer, and yet he had been able 
to pursue the broad policy areas in which the Board was interested). 
Chairman Healey thanked President Patterson on behalf of the Board 
for his efforts and noted that, at the Executive Committee meeting, 
he had expressed the hope that after the September meeting of the 
Board these thanks could be expressed in a more meaningful fashion 
At his request, the Trustees gave President Patterson a standing 
ovation. 



Chancellor Van Ummersen, speaking for the Boston Campus 
said that the campus long-range plan was now in the final stages 
and would soon be forwarded to the President. Also, self-study 
reports for accreditation were being completed and would be mailed 
to the accreditation team by the September 4, 1978 deadline. Fi- : 
nally, program planning for the Clark Physical Education Building 
was going on in anticipation of the building's completion some 
eighteen months hence. 

Chancellor Bulger, speaking for the Worcester campus, 
said that the admissions process at the Medical School was a con- 
timious one because certain students dropped out and were replaced! 
by others throughout the year. There were two things about admis 
sions that bore watching. One was that applications to medical 
schools had decreased over the past two years. UM/Worcester had 
so far not seen such a decrease. Secondly, there was also a de- 
crease in the number of women applicants and women students and 
Worcester had experienced this. The Chancellor said it was too 
early to tell if these decreases represented trends or aberrations!. 

The Teaching Hospital, Chancellor Bulger continued, had 
just completed its first full year as a trust fund operation. He 



-3- 



Board 
8/2/78 



UM/Boston— 

Chancellor's 

Comments 



UM/Worcester- 
Chancellor 's 
Comments 



Board 
8/2/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

reminded the Trustees that the trust fund operation had been ap- 
proached with some trepidation. However, the financial reports 
had all proved positive in every way. Also, the number of beds in 
the Hospital was growing as planned. 

In November, 1978, the Medical School would be visited 
by an accreditation team. Medical schools were now subject to a 
provision that had long been in practice for other professional 
schools; that is, the requirement that the school undertake an 
elaborate self-study prior to the accreditation visit. The Medi- 
cal School was now doing this, faculty and staff were heavily in- 
volved, and it was proving to be a most fruitful exercise. The 
Chancellor said the School had first been accredited three years 
ago and that he expected a like result from the upcoming visit. 



Chancellor Bulger said that UM/Worcester had leased 
part of the Shaw Building, the original home of the Medical School 
to two tenants some five years ago. Recently he had written to 
the tenants, the Red Cross and the Municipal Public Health Depart- 
ment, informing them that they would not be allowed to have another 
five-year lease. The tenants, rather than asking to discuss the 
natter, released copies of his letters to the local newspapers. 
The newspapers printed stories about the matter under headlines 
normally reserved for the declaration and termination of world war 

Chancellor Bulger said the reason for his action was 
that as the Medical Center developed, the space in the Shaw Build- 
ing might have to be used. While he was willing to grant a one- 
year lease, he would not consider a five-year lease until a long- 
range plan was approved. 



One side issue in all this, 
that the rent from the space went into 
;he fact that it cost the Medical Cent 
tain the Shaw Building. This $100,000 
2alculation of the per student costs o 
4edical School, thus adding about $250 
Chancellor Bulger concluded by express 
be better if this money were available 
at least if the rent were credited to 



Chancellor Bulger said, was 
the state coffers, despite 

er $100,000 per year to main- 
was included in the state's 

f educating students in the 
per student to those costs. 

ing his belief that it would 
for educational purposes or 

the Medical Center's account 



Trustee Burack asked if the recently imposed tuition 
payback requirement had affected applicants to the Medical School. 

hancellor Bulger said he would bring precise figures to the next 
3oard meeting. All students who were accepted by the Medical Scho6l 
and who did not enroll were asked why they chose not to enroll. 

hancellor Bulger said he knew of only two such students who cited 
:he payback requirement as one factor in making their decision. 



-4- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The Board then heard the Reports of the Standing Com- 
mittees. Chairman Healey, reporting for the Executive Committee, 
said that most Trustees had been present when the Committee had 
discussed the Concurrence in the Appointment of Michael 0. Bice 
as Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance as well as Hos- 



pital Director — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-105). Basically the Corn- 



Board 
8/2/78 

Report of 
Executive 
Committee 



mittee had agreed to recommend that the positions of Vice Chancel- 
lor and Hospital Director be combined, that Mr. Bice be appointed 
to both positions, and that the matter of salary for the positions 
be referred to the Committee on Budget and Finance. Without dis- 
cussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED ; To merge the positions of Vice Chancellor for 

Administration and Finance and Hospital Director 
at the University of Massachusetts at Worcester. 



and further 



VOTED : 



To concur with the President in the appointment 
by the Chancellor of Michael 0. Bice as Vice 
Chancellor for Administration and Finance and 
Hospital Director at the University of Massachu- 
setts as detailed in Doc, T78-105. 



and further 



VOTED : To refer the Personnel Action set forth in 

Trustee Doc. T78-106 to the Committee on Budget 
and Finance. 

The next item, Chairman Healey said, had to do with the 
future of President Patterson. The Executive Committee was pro- 
posing that as of August 31, 1978, his appointment be changed from; 
interim President and Frank L. Boyden Professor of the University 
with tenure, with the understanding that he will return to the 
Harbor Campus in order to teach, conduct research and represent 
the University in programs relating to the John F. Kennedy Library 
For these many tasks his annual compensation would drop to 
$41,177.85. There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded 
and 

VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as set forth in 
Doc. T78-109. 



The Committee's next recommendation was to authorize UM/Worcester — 



UM/ Worcester — 
merger of 
Position of 
Vice Chancellor 
for Adminis- 
tration and 
Finance and 
Hospital 
Director 

Concurrence in 
Appointment of 
Michael 0. Bice 
to above 
Position 
(Doc. T78-105) 

Referral of 
Personnel 
Action to 
Committee on 
Budget and 
Finance 

Personnel 

Action 

(Doc. T78-109) 



the Chancellor at Worcester to seek Hospital Rate Increases (Doc. 
T78-104). Details of the proposed increases had been forwarded to 
all Trustees and had been fully discussed at the Executive Commit- 
tee meeting. Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 



-5- 



Hospital Rate 
Increases 
(Doc. T78-104) 



Board 
8/2/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

VOTED : To authorize the Chancellor of the University of 
Massachusetts at Worcester to seek an increase 
in hospital rates for the Teaching Hospital 
effective August 2, 1978. The weighted average 
of the rate increases shall not exceed 11.8%; 
such increases to be as generally outlined in 
Doc. T78-104. 

Further, to request the Rate Setting Commission 
for Health Institutions to approve said increases 

Mr. Parks abstained from the vote and asked that the 
record so state. 



Salary Chairman Healey said the next item had to do with au- 

Adjustments thorizing the Presient to make salary adjustments and merit in- 
and Merit creases for professional staff not represented by an employee or- 
Increases ganization. This too was a matter which had been gone into thor- 
oughly at the Committee meeting. There was no discussion and it 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the President, subject to avail- 
able funds, to implement salary adjustments 
and merit increases pursuant to guidelines 
established by the State Office of Employee 
Relations for professional staff members not 
represented by an employee organization certi- 
fied by the Labor Relations Commission. 

UM/Worcester- 1 Chairman Healey noted that the Executive Committee had 

Chancellor's iheld a special meeting on July 10, 1978 in order to try to imple- 
Search (Doc. ment the process for the Chancellor's Search — UM/Worcester. While 
T78-107 the Committee had taken some actions, Chairman Healey said he had 
■108 and taken the position at the meeting not to go forward with full im- 
10) plementation of these actions until the Board had met and the Trus 
tees had been given an opportunity to express their opinions. 

Trustee Burack said she had some comments which were 
not totally positive. One had to do with the number of candidates 
to be brought to the Board for approval. She said that she could 
not concur with the recommendation that three to five candidates 
would be recommended to the President, who in turn would recommend 
one to the Board. Chairman Healey said he did not see that the 
process would work in that way. It was his understanding that 
there was flexibility in the process and that the Board could in 
terview as many or as few candidates as it wished. Trustee Burack 
said that unless she was misinterpreting paragraph two of Doc. T78' 
198, it stated that the President would be asked "to nominate to 
the Board one of the three to five final candidates proposed by 
the [Search] Committee." 



-6- 



\ 



\ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey said that what the Executive Committee 
had contemplated was that the Search Committee would recommend 
not less than three, nor more than five*, candidates to the Board 
and the President and that the Board would interview these if it 
so wished. 

Trustee Burack said that the wording seemed to contra- 
dict the intent and that she could not vote for the proposal as 
it was written, Chairman Healey asked if it would be acceptable 
if the wording were to be changed to state that the Board could 
interview not less than three candidates, nor more than five if 
it so wished. Trustee Burack said that it would be. 

Chairman Healey said that this would be done. He asked 
if there were other suggestions for change in the process of if 
there were other questions. Dr. Grady asked for clarification of 
the definition of the small ad hoc committee mentioned in Doc. T78 
107. Chairman Healey said that the Trustees would be represented 
in the search process in two ways — through the two Trustee members 
of the search committee as well as by a small ad hoc committee of 
Trustees available to interview candidates. Consideration had 
been given to having the Executive Committee act in this fashion; 
however, it seemed more meaningful to have a committee the charge 
of which was to deal with the search process. Chairman Crain said 
that his understanding of precedent was that any Trustee who so 
wished could attend the interview process. Chairman Healey said 
this understainding was absolutely correct. In designing the 
search process there had been no intent to forestall Trustee parti 
cipation, rather the attempt was to try to expand such partici- 
pation. 



I 



ments. 



Chairman Healey asked if there were any further corn- 
There were none and it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED 



To accept and ratify the actions and recommendations 
of the Executive Committee of July 10, 1978, re- 
garding the Chancellor's Search, UM/Worcester , as 
described in Doc. T78-107; and further to authorize 
the President to implement the provisions of said 
document. 



and further 



VOTED : 



To appoint those individuals recommended in 
Doc. T78-110 to be members of the Search Com- 
mittee — Chancellor of the University of Massa- 
chusetts at Worcester. 



Chairman Healey announced that Trustees Popko and 
Robertson had agreed to serve as the Trustee members of the search, 
committee and that the name of the community representative would 
soon be available. 



-7- 



Board 
8/2/78 



Board 
8/2/78 



UM/Boston — 
Purchase of 
Gulf Oil 
Property 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To charge the Search Committee — Chancellor 

of the University of Massachusetts at Worcester 
as specified in Doc. T78-108 as amended. 

[Note: Doc. T78-108 was amended by inserting 
in the second paragraph on page one the phrase 
"with the Board or an ad hoc committee of the 
Trustees having aa opportunity to interview 
said candidates," after the words "forth below," 
and before the words "and that the President be 
asked...." The Document was renumbered Doc. 
T78-108A.] 

Chairman Healey noted that these actions meant that 
the search process was now underway and thanked the Trustees for 
their quick approval of the proposal. President Patterson said 
this was a positive move, as there was now a chance that the 
Board might be able to appoint a new Chancellor prior to the de- 
parture of Chancellor Bulger. This would be a healthy thing for 
the University. Trustee Burack said that one of the very good 
things about the charge was that it formed the basis for the eval- 
uation of the administrator at a later.time,- 

The Board then discussed Gulf Oil Property Purchase — 
UM/Boston. President Patterson reminded the Trustees that the 
land used for the shuttle bus turnaround at the Columbia Station 
of the MTA was leased from the Gulf Oil Corporation. The lease 
had expired on June 30, 1978, and Gulf, wishing to sell the prop- 
erty, had refused to renew it. The Board had been able to secure 
from the Legislature capital outlay funds which would allow the 
University to purchase the land and to make improvements at the 
facility. After much negotiation with Gulf a mutually satisfac- 
tory price for the land had been agreed on. 

Mr. Parks said that while he understood the need for 
the land and the facility, he would vote against the motion as 
he was opposed to Gulf Oil's continuous support of apartheid in 
South Africa. This had been his policy for years. 



Trustee Dion asked if there was any other land available 
for the facility. President Patterson said the only alternative 
was at Andrews Station and use of that station would have had a 
very serious impact on the Harbor Campus and on the Kennedy Library, 
There was no further discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve and ratify the Executive Committee's 
action of July 10, 1978 which authorized the 
President of the University to offer the Gulf 
Oil Corporation an amount not to exceed $200,000 
for the purchase of approximately 80,000 square 
feet of real property at the northerly end of the 
Gulf-owned land at 33 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston 



-8- 



t 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

(Dorchester), Massachusetts, said property 
to include that parcel leased by Gulf to the 
University on January 23, 1974, and the metes 
and bounds of said property to be determined 
by a survey to be commissioned by the Univer- 
sity. And which authorized and empowered the 
Acting Treasurer, upon acceptance by Gulf of 
said offer, to execute all agreements neces- 
sary for the University to acquire said prop- ..'>: 
erty, and to execute any and all instruments 
necessary to consumate the purchase of said 
property in the name of the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts for the use of the Trustees of 
the University of Massachusetts, said agree- 
ments and instruments to be approved as to 
form by the General Counsel; provided, that 
the payment for such purchase shall be made 
from capital outlay appropriations available 
for purpose. 

Mr. Parks voted against the motion. 

The Board then discussed Authorization of President to 
Appoint Certifying Officer . President Patterson said that this 
was a housekeeping matter which would authorize the President to 
appoint a certifying officer in the absence of the Secretary and 
the Assistant Secretary. There was no discussion and it was 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve and ratify the Executive Committee's 
action of July 10, 1978 which authorized the 
President to appoint a Certifying Officer in 
the absence of the Secretary and the Assistant 
Secretary. 

This concluded the report of the Executive Committee. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy. Trustee Troy said the Committee 
had met on June 14, and the first item of business was the recom-i 
mended Change of Name of Institute for Man and Environment to the j 
Environmental Institute — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-094). The original 
name had been the Institute for Man and His Environment. The 
"His" was later eliminated as sexist, but the "Man" remained. Th^ 
proposal now before the Board would remove the last barrier of 
anthropocentrism. Trustee Troy said the Committee had no trouble? 
in accepting this change and recommended it to the Board. Without 
discussion it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED : To redesignate the Institute for Man and Environ- 
ment at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst 
as the Environmental Institute as set forth in 
Doc. T78-094. 



-9- 



Board 
8/2/78 



Authorization 
of President to 
Appoint Certify- 
ing Officer 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Fac- 
ulty and Educa- 
tional Policy 

Change of Name 
of Institute 
for Man and 
Environment to 
the Environ- 
mental Insti- 
tute — UM/Amherst 
(Doc. T78-094) 



I 



Board 
8/2/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The Committee, Trustee Troy continued, then discus- 
sed the establishment of two new interdepartmental majors at 
Amherst — Linguistics and Anthropology and Linguistics and Psychol 
ogy. This matter required no action, as the Board in 1974 had 
approved the offering of interdepartmental majors by extant de- 
partments. There were a number of such majors at Amherst and 
they, like the latest two, required no new resources or faculty. 

The Committee, Trustee Troy continued, had also heard 
a report on the Title XX program . As was known, the purpose of 
the program was to upgrade the education and training of person- 
nel in certain areas of human service delivery. This was to be 
accomplished by means of workshops and, more ambitiously, the 
development of a competency based core curriculum. University 
staff had been working to develop a model educational program, 
something that no other institution was doing. 

During the past fiscal year, the University had been 
working with and through the Department of Public Welfare in 
developing the program and Mr. Harris, Director of the Program, 
was not exactly optimistic about the effectiveness of this liaison 
and operation. 

Since the Committee meeting, Trustee Troy continued, 
he had learned that difficulties in working out a number of im- 
portant issues had placed the whole matter in limbo and the pro- 
posed contract had yet to be signed by the University. Mr. Lynton 
asked leave to amplify this situation. Since the time Trustee 
Troy had written his report, the University had had another meet- 
ing with the Commissioner of Public Welfare and the relationship 
could now be considered essentially non-existent. 

Mr. Lynton said that the basic issue was that what the 
University had attempted to undertake was the development of an 
imaginative and innovative model curriculum which would be, in its 
various parts, applicable and usable by a variety of human serv- 
ice delivery personnel throughout the state. Such a model currieu 
lum would require a two to three year research and development 
effort. This would have to be funded through a research and de- 
velopment grant. The Department of Public Welfare, on the other 
hand, for quite understandable reasons, being tied as it was to 
its own bureaucracy and rules and regulations, really didn't know 
how to deal with a research and development situation. The Depart 
ment could only deal with what was essentially a contract for a 
predetermined product. The University's mode of operation and 
that of the Department had been proven to be incompatible. 

President Patterson said that during the week July 24 
he had decided to terminate the relationship because there did 
not appear to be any hope of making progress in the future. Over 
a six month period the project had eaten up staff time at an in- 
tolerable rate. It became his conviction that it was the course 
of wisdom not to continue the process. He said he wished the ef- 
fort could have succeeded. Trustee Burack asked if there were 

-10- 



I 



Title XX 
Program 



f 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

any way in which the money could be rechannelled so that the Uni- 
versity became the primary agency rather than the Department. 
Mr. Lynton said this was not possible, as the U.S. Department of 
Health, Education and Welfare insisted that the primary agencies 
be the state departments of public welfare. 



Board 
8/2/78 



1978 Tenure 
Awards — UM/ 



Trustee Troy said the Committee then turned to a dis- 
cussion of 1978 Tenure Awards — UM/Amherst and UM/Boston. Presi- 
dent Patterson had asked for concurrence in the award of tenure to Amherst and 
52 faculty members out of a total of 66 initially reviewed and re- Boston 
commended at the departmental level. Of the 52, 13 were women 
and 6 were minorities. 

The tenure review process, Trustee Troy continued, was 
long and arduous, and deliberately so, in order to protect fac- 
ulty rights at each of the many levels of review. At the meeting 
questions were raised about the percentages of tenured faculty 
and how this compared with the national average. Dr. Lynton had 
replied that 70 percent of the faculty was tenured, not including 
vacancies, and 66 percent of vacancies were included. This was 
somewhat higher than the national average for public higher edu- 
cation but not substantially so. It was substantially higher 
than at many private colleges and universities. 

Trustee Troy said that the University was now at the 
end of the big hiring wave that occurred in the early 1970' s and 
tenure recommendations were down. Tenure recommendations for 
1978 were about half what they had been in recent years. The 
Committee was now recommending that the Board concur in the award 
of tenure to those faculty members who had been reviewed at the 
June 14 meeting of the Faculty and Educational Policy Committee. 
Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To concur in the President's award of tenure 
to those faculty members at UM/Amherst and 
UM/Boston named in Supplements I and II to 
Doc. T78-089, effective September, 1978. 

Trustee Troy said that the Committee had held another 
meeting on the morning of the present Board meeting. At that 
meeting the first item of business was consideration of a request; 
for Exemption of Dr. Ernest Washington from Requirement of Imme- 
diate Return Sabbatical Leave — UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-102) in 
order that he can teach for one year at another institution. 
Board policy mandated that if a faculty member did not do so, all; 
salary received while on sabbatical had to repaid unless the 
Board made an exception. In the case of Professor Washington, 
President Patterson had felt that an exception should be allowed, 
since the visiting professorship he will be filling at Georgia 
State would further continue and enrich his sabbatical experience 
Professor Washington understood and accepted that he had to re- 
turn to the University for at least one year of service following 
completion of his leave without pay. Trustee Robertson asked if 



-11- 



UM/ Amherst — 
Exemption of 
Dr. Ernest 
Washington 
From Require- 
ment of Imme- 
diate Return 
From Sabbatical 
Leave 



Board 
8/2/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence 
in Appoint- 
ment of 
Harry T. 
Allan as 
Dean, and 
Professor 
with Tenure, 
School of 
Business 
Administra- 
tion 

(Doc. T78- 
103) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Professor Washington also understood that he would be required to 
refund the salary received while on sabbatical. Trustee Troy 
said that he did and had so stated in writing. There was no fur- 
ther discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To waive for one year the requirement that 
Professor Ernest Washington return to the 
University on completion of his sabbatical 
leave on August 31, 1978, it being under- 
stood that Professor Washington will return 
to the University on September 1, 1979 or 
will return all salary paid to him while on 
sabbatical as stated in Doc. T78-102. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee next discussed the pro- 
posed Concurrence in Appointment of Henry T. Allan as Dean and 
Professor with Tenure at the School of Business Administration — 



r 



UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-103) . Professor Allan had once been a ten- 
ured professor at Amherst and was returning to the University with 
the highest possible recommendations. This would be a very dis- 
tinguished and fortunate appointment. 

Speaking for the record, Trustee Dennis said he had a 
comment which did not relate to Professor Allan per se, but re- 
lated to the search process and the memorandum on affirmative ac- 
tion that was included in the material sent to the Trustees. 
Since two of his main interests were business administration and 
ffirmative action, he had read all of the material very carefully ^ 
n the material it was stated that all possible actions had been 
taken to search out candidates to ensure that the affirmative ac- 
:ion provisions were compiled with. Trustee Dennis said that he 
iound it strange that he was not contacted in this matter because 
one of his main outside activities, in addition to serving on the 
^oard, was to serve on the American Institute for Certified Public 
Accountants' Committee on Education, in terms of minority schools. 
He found it strange that the search committee did not inquire as 
to the background of the Trustees and seek their opinions, espe- 
cially in the areas of business administration and affirmative ac- 
tion. He said he wished to express his objection, not to the ap- 
pointment, but to the search process, especially as the backup 
haterial stated that the School of Business Administration perhaps 
ad a racist image. He said he had not been aware of this, but the 

iack of contact with certain Trustees made him unsure if the image 
as justified or not. There was no further discussion and it was 
ipoved, seconded and 

VOTED : To concur with the Presient in the appoint- 
ment by the Chancellor of Harry T. Allan as 
Dean of the School of Business Administration 
at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst 
as set forth in Doc. T78-103. 



I 



i 



■12- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



and further 



VOTED : 



To concur in the appointment by the Presi- 
dent of Harry T. Allan as Professor of Busi- 
ness Administration with tenure at the Uni- 
versity of Massachusetts at Amherst as set 
forth in Doc. T78-103. 



Trustee Troy said the Committee then heard a report 
from Vice Chancellor Caper on the desire of the Medical Center to 
develop a program for planning and development of an Area Health 
Education Center Program . Such programs had been called for in a 
Carnegie Commission Report, and were designed to correct geograph- 
ical and specialty maldistributions in health manpower throughout 
the country. Originally the concern was for maldistribution in 
rural areas but the concern now included urban areas as well. 
Trustee Troy, having just heard the proposal and not being too 
familiar with it, asked Dr. Caper to explain the scope and range 
of the program. 

Dr. Caper said it was his understanding that the Trus- 
tees had received material describing the scope of the program 
with respect to the federal government's efforts. It was a pro- 
gram which was authorized under the federal Comprehensive Health 
Manpower Training Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-157), as extended and ex- 
panded by the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act 1979 
(P.L. 94-484). The act encourages university health science cen- 
ters to establish satellite educational programs in locations re- 
mote from the health science center with the intent, as had been 
stated, to correct the maldistribution of health professions per- 
sonnel and with the ultimate goal of encouraging them to locate 
and practice in those areas. This was based on the recognition 
that an improvement in the educational and professional environ- 
ment may act as one important factor in their decision as to where 
to locate their practices. 

For the past year and a half the Medical Center had 
been working with communities throughout the Commonwealth in an 
attempt to develop a state-wide AHEC program. The program would 
be funded largely by the federal government and would involve not 
only the University but would, through subcontracts, involve the 
medical schools of Tufts and Boston University. It was believed 
that this would establish a very healthy precedent with respect to 
cooperation between public and private sectors in the health edu- 
cation area in the Commonwealth. Also, discussion had been held 
with the University of Lowell and Southeastern Massachusetts Uni- 
versity around the issues of allied health professions training. 

Dr. Caper said the communities with which the Medical 
Center had been working were scattered throughout the state. Each 
was in an area which had been federally designated as a medically 
underserved area and included Pittsfield, Springfield, Lowell, 



-13 



Board 
8/2/78 



UM/Worcester— 
Proposed AHEC 
Program 



Board 
8/2/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Lawrence, Fall River, New Bedford and Boston. The Boston center 
would be an urban AHEC and would be run by the Boston University 
School of Medicine under a subcontract. It would be in the 
vicinity of Boston City Hospital and its purpose would be to im- 
prove the level of educational capabilities in some of the neigh- 
borhood health centers in the South End, Roxbury and Dorchester. 

The Springfield AHEC would consist of a newly created 
non-profit corporation. Representatives from the Medical Center, 
Tufts and community hospitals in the area would be on the board o 
the AHEC. 

One of the important elements of the proposal, Dr. 
Caper said, was that it could be an opportunity to decentralize 
the educational programs of the Medical Center and to turn it into 
a statewide educational resource much more rapidly than anyone 
would have thought possible. Further, it could be done with 75 
percent federal funding. This was a direction in which the Medi- 
cal Center should be moving in any event. 



Dr. Caper said that federal regulations require that no 
AHEC site be funded for longer than five years. The Medical Cen- 
ter AHEC proposal, which would be sent to HEW shortly, would call 
for the phasing in of the site for a period of from three to four' 
years, leading to a nine year program in all. In other words some 
of the AHEC ' s would be established in the third or fourth year of 
the program. This would mean that the federal commitment, once it 
was made, would be for a period of nine years. Application was 
being made for an initial planning contract with a budget in the 
range of $500,000 for the first year. 

In that first year, Dr. Caper said, the parameters of 
the program at each site would be developed. Once the initial 
planning contract is awarded, the federal government can then 
award sole source contracts. If the Medical Center proposal was 
accepted, then in each succeeding year it would negotiate with 
HEW to determine the dimensions and the nature of the contractual 
responsibilities the University would assume under the program. 

The federal guidelines, Dr. Caper continued, also re- 
quire that a state-wide advisory committee be established in order 
to provide policy direction for the program. The Medical Center 
was proposing a broad membership for the mandated committee and 
would include representation from the State Office of Health Plan- 
ning. 

Dr. Caper said that If the Worcester proposal were ac- 
cepted, it would provide a unique opportunity — that of integrat- 
ing health manpower planning with health manpower production. 
This was expected to be one of the more attractive parts of the 
proposal, as it had never really been done before anywhere in the 
country. Since the AHEC program had begun, competition for the 
grant had been intense and it was expected that this year the 
situation would be the same. HEW was expected to award five AHEC 



-14- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

grants during 1978 and the Medical Center proposal would be in 
competition with those of medical schools throughout the country. 
Dr. Caper said he considered the Worcester proposal to be a very 
good one. If it were accepted, it would not only have great im- 
pact on the shape of the educational programs of the Medical Cen- 
ter , it could have an important and positive impact on the distri 
bution of health manpower throughout the Commonwealth. 



Trustee Crain asked if the AHEC program could provide 
health professionals with the opportunity to earn credit through 
continuing education. Dr. Caper said that it would. Each pro- 
gram was required to have four elements — undergraduate and grad- 
uate medical education, continuing medical education programs for 
practitioners, training in the allied health professions, and con- 
sumer health education. Trustee Crain said that if the university 
established programs which helped individuals in the private sec- 
tor to maintain or increase their earning capacity, then provisions 
should be made which would ensure that the University, a public 
institution, did not provide funding for the programs from its 
own resources. That is, costs not federally funded should be 
charged to those benefitting from the program. Dr. Caper said he 
agreed with Mr. Crain. One of the good aspects of the program 
was that the University would know that the federal funding would 
end after five years and that efforts would have to be made from 
the beginning to determine how the program could be revenue gen- 
erating. 



Trustee Burack asked if any thought had been given to 
what the financial impact on the state would be when the federal 
funding ended. There had been many instances where programs had 
been started with federal seed money and when that money ceased 
the communities and/or the Commonwealth were faced with enormous 
obligations. Dr. Caper said that during the initial planning 
year there would be no need for any funds beyond those provided 
by HEW. In the succeeding four years, a 25 percent match, in kind 
or in cash, would have to be provided. The Commonwealth would 
contribute 10 percent, local participants 15 percent. There were 
a number of ways of coping with the cessation of federal funding. 
One would be to design elements in the program that would self- 
extinguish within five years; that is, integrating existing pro- 
grams, accrediting programs or developing programs that would 
establish linkages between institutions. Another way, as Trustee 
Crain had suggested, was to design programs which become self-sup- 
porting. A third way would be to design programs that could be 
supported by non-state sources, such as residency programs which 
can be partially or wholely funded through hospital budgets. 

Trustee Burack said that, in view of the rather large defi- 
cit at the Medical School and because there was a financial risk 



Board 
8/2/78 



-15- 



Board 
8/2/78 



UM/Worcester 
Proposed 
Exchange 
Program with 
China 



1978 Tenure 
Awards 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

in the proposal, it would be important for the Trustees to have 
all the facts before voting on the program. Dr. Caper said that 
these matters would be very explicitly addressed during the plan- ' 
ning year. Before the Board was asked to vote there would be 
figures and projections showing what the cost would be. 

At Trustee Troy's request Dr. Caper then discussed the 
proposed Exchange Program with China . The proposal was for a re- 
ciprocal exchange program and relationship between the Medical 
School and a to be identified medical school in the People's Republic 
of China. '.It was _thought that substantial gains would be made by 
both schools from such a program. The Chinese were quite inter- 
ested in the whole issue of technology transfer between the U.S. 
and China, particularly in the medical/health area. This interest 
had led to establishment of a special committee by the National 
Academy of Sciences to begin to deal with the issue. 

From the point of view of the Medical School, Dr. Caper 
said, there was a great deal to be learned from the ways in which 
the Chinese approach things such as patient self-care, the use of 
physicians' assistants, the incentives used to insure that the 
medical school graduates return to their point of origin and other 
areas . 

The Medical School had developed a draft proposal for ah 
exchange program and this had been sent to Senator Kennedy. He 
and a special committee of the National Academy of Sciences had 
reviewed it and, on an informal basis, had given a go ahead and 
were now willing to accept a formal proposal for submission to the 
Chinese Ambassador. Trustee Burack said that the work "reciprocal 
had a certain connotation to her, which connotation did not in- 
clude the University paying to send doctors to China and paying to 
bring doctors from China to Worcester. She said she would be op- 
posed to such an arrangement. It if were approved, the funds 
should come from some other source than the University or the 
Commonwealth. Dr. Caper said there was a good chance that money 
could be found from other sources. 

Trustee Troy thanked Dr. Caper for his remarks and 
then said that the morning's Committee meeting had dealt with four 
additional tenure recommendations, making a total of 56, including 
8 minorities and 13 women. He noted that the vote now before the 
Board subsumed the earlier one. Without discussion it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : To concur in the President's award of tenure 
to those faculty members at UM/ Amherst, UM/ 
Boston and UM/Worcester named in Supplements 
I, II and III to Trustee Document T78-089, 
effective September, 1978. 



-16- 



I 



I 



1 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The next item was Offer of Award of Tenure to Dr . 
Harold C. Gotoff . Trustee Troy said that while at UM/Boston Dr. 
Gotoff had been denied tenure. He had appealed to the Committee. 
The Committee after studying the matter, asked President Patter- 
son to reconsider his case. The President did so and after recon 
sideration had decided that Dr. Gotoff should be awarded tenure. 
Dr. Gotoff was now a tenured professor at the University of Illi- 
nois and may not return. However, this was a matter of importance 
to him in terms of his own feeling of academic integrity. The 
Committee was now recommending that the Board concur in the Presi- 
dent's decision. There was no discussion and it was moved, and 
seconded and 

VOTED : To concur in the President's offer of an 
award of tenure to Dr. Harold C. Gotoff. 



The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Long-Range Planning. Trustee Popko, reporting in place of the 
absent Trustee Marks, said that the Committee had met and discus- 
sed the One and Five Year Plan for University Hospital — UM/Worceste 
(Doc. T78-099). The plan was required of all hospitals by the De-* 
partment of Public Health. The plans were submitted annually and: 
covered such matters as description of the facility, program plans, 
etc. One of DPH's greatest concerns were items which came under 
the Certificate of Need Law — that is, items costing over $150, 000 J 



This year, Trustee Popko continued, there was a new 
component in the plan — the Cost Center Report Section. This 
section required every cost center in the hospital to develop pro- 
jections for the next five years in terms of activities and costs 
Trustee Popko said that she knew of no hospital which had been 
able to complete this new section. Most hospitals, including the 
University Hospital, had asked for an extension. There were no 
penalties for missing the deadline. 

Trustee Popko said it should be noted that the plan 
was not a finalized one. It was a process plan which was updated 
annually. Only the certificate of need items which were planned 
to be implemented within one year would have any current impact. 
The Long-Range Planning Committee had accepted the document with 
the knowledge that it was subject to change. President Patterson 
said that it had been noted at the meeting that the One and Five 
Year Plan was only one part of the overall planning process of 
the Medical Center. There was no further discussion and it was 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the One and Five Year Plan for the 
University Hospital, UM/Worcester , as detailed 
in Doc. T78-099 for submission to the appro- 
priate agencies. 



Board 
8/2/78 

Concurrence in 
Offer of Award 
of Tenure to 
Dr. Harold C. 
Gotoff 



-17- 



Report of 
Committee on 
Long-Range 
rPlanning 

UM/Worcester — 
One and Five 
Year Plan for 
University 
Hospital (Doc. 
T78-099) 



Board 
8/2/78 

Report of 
Committee 
on Audits 



Report of 
Delegate to 
Board of 
Higher 
Education 



Status of 
Petitions of 
Professors 
Cox, Tsao 
and Wright 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Audits. Trustee Dennis said the Committee had met on June 21, an 
the first item of business was an entrance conference with Ernst 
and Ernst, who had been selected to audit the Teaching Hospital 
and Group Practice at UM/Worcester . Also, an offer had been sent 
to a candidate for the Director of Audits post, but no answer had 
been received to date. 

Trustee Dennis said the Committee had developed a pro- 
posal for an audit of the financial aid operation, and it had been 
sent out for bid. The Committee was now developing proposals for 
audits at the Amherst campus. 



At the meeting, Trustee Dennis continued, and exit con- 1 
ference was held with Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, the firm that 
had made the FY 1977 audits of the auxiliary enterprises at UM/ 
Amherst. Trustee Dennis said this had been a good session with 
a frank discussion of a number of points. With regard to any fur- 
ther audits Peat, Marwick and Mitchell might perform for the Uni- 
versity, the firm's representatives were invited to communicate 
directly with the Committee if they had any problems in meeting 
audit deadlines. The Committee was moving ahead and it was ex- 
pected that progress would continue. Trustee Crain, speaking as 
a member of both Audits and Budget and Finance Committees, said 
it was his hope that as the FY 1979 budgets became hardened, pro- 
vision would be made for remedial action dictated by the audits. 
In several instances dubious situations were disclosed by the first 
outside audit and were still existent during the second outside 
audit. Instances such as these put the Audits Committee in an 
untenable position. Situations which require remedial action 
must be addressed and the resources necessary for corrective ac- 
tion must be made available. 



Chairman Healey asked if the Audits Committee planned 
to meet with management on such issues. Trustee Dennis said that 
this was being done. On the matter of providing funds for re- 
medial action, he was uncertain as to where they would come from. 
Trustee Crain said that his point was that, in establishing prior- 
ities, the very difficult problems revealed by the external audits 
had to be addressed, in addition to academic considerations. Re-; 
sources would have to be devoted to these problems . 

The Board then heard the report of the Delegate to the 
Board of Higher Education. Trustee Sawtelle said that the BHE 
had met on July 19, and had chosen Dr. Edward C. McGuire to 
succeed Dr. Leroy Keith as Chancellor of the BHE. Dr. McGuire, 
presently Commissioner of Higher Education in Pennsylvania, will 
assume his new duties in September. 

Chairman Healey then said that there were two items. to 
be dealt with under Other Business. The first had to do with the 
status of the petitions of Professors Cox, Tsao and Wright. Mr. 
Lynton said the petitions had been sent to Chancellor Bromery 



-18- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

for review by a Campus Liaison Committee and thus, under the pro- 
visions of the By-laws of the Board, were not before the Board. 
Chairman Healey asked if this met with the approval of the Board, 
There were no expressions of dissent. 



Chairman Healey said the other item had to do with a 
letter sent directly to all members of the Board concerning a 
former resident of the Commonwealth who outlined a great number of 
contacts with the Commonwealth, both his own and those of his 
family. The issue was whether or not he was subject to non-resi- 
dent fees. President Patterson said that while the quality of th^ 
appeal was certainly impressive, the position of the Board in this 
regard was very clear and the Board would have to make a substan- 
tial change in policy in order to make an exception. He said his 
own recommendation would be not to make such a change. At present, 
an exception in this regard is not made in any case. If an ex- 
ception were made in any case, the Board would be faced with an 
unending number of such requests and this would present great dif- 
ficulties to the University. 



Trustee Popko asked what the present policy was. 
Counsel Searson said the University had a complex set of rules and 
regulations with respect to the criteria which would be considered 
to establish either resident or non-resident status. At one time 
one could appeal a decision as to resident/non-resident status to 
the Treasurer, who had to deal with many such cases. Such de- 
cisions, Counsel Searson continued, were always very difficult an4 
complex, and involved matters of precise judgement. He said he 
agreed with the President that once the Trustees intervened to 
allow discretionary change at the Board level then hundreds of ap 
peals would be forthcoming. 



President Patterson said he had reviewed the appeal 
throughly, particularly after Trustee Burack had suggested that 
the matter merited reconsideration. The matter, viewed in the 
light of Board policy, was reconsidered. After discussing the 
matter with his staff, he had concluded that it would be a serious 
mistake to make exception to the policy, however deserving a parti- 
cular appeal might appear to be. Trustee Burack said her sug- 
gestion was based on two things — one, the merits of the particu- 
lar case being appealed, the other the seemingly nation-wide lack 
of clarity as to what constituted residency. She said it might 
be time for the Board to re-study the latter. 

Trustee Troy asked what made the present petitioner a 
non-resident. President Patterson said it was because he had not 
been a resident for a full year. Chairman Healey said it seemed 
quite clear that under the literal language of the present policy 
he was not a resident and he could only be granted residency status 
if the Trustees were willing to waive the policy. Trustee Dion 
said he had talked with the petitioner and that the Trustees 



-19- 



Board 
8/2/78 



Request for 
Exemption 
from Policy 
regarding 
Status of 
Residency for 
Tuition Pur- 
poses 



Board 
8/2/78 



Report of 
Committee 
on Board 
Operations 
and Organi- 
zation 



Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

should be aware that he had been a resident of the Commonwealth 
for 32 years, and a non-resident for one year. Trustee Dion said 
that if present policy was so restrictive, it might be well to re- 
view it. Dr. Grady pointed out that the petitioner had voluntarily, 
for whatever reason, established residency in another state. 

President Patterson said if the Trustees so desired, 
arrangements could be made to review the policy at the September 
meeting. Counsel Searson noted that there could be request for 
a change in status after one year's residency in the Commonwealth. 

Chairman Healey said that the Board should deal with 
the case at hand. Trustee Crain said his only comment was that 
after the vote Counsel Searson should be directed to advise the 
petitioner of the possibility of a change in status. 



It was the sense of the Board that the petition should 



be denied. 



With the Chairman's permission Trustee Burack gave a 
brief report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board Operations and Or- 
ganization. She reminded the Trustees that in early June she had 
sent to them a summary of discussions, interviews and preliminary 
recommendations that the Committee had made at that time. A 
second memorandum had been written and would be sent to all Trus- 
tees so that they would be able to fully understand the recommen- 
dations concerning the Office of the Secretary which the Committee 
would bring to the September Board meeting. 

Chairman Healey said that the business before the 
Board was concluded and recommended that the Board go into execu- 
tive session for the purpose of discussing pending litigation in 
which the Trustees were involved and to hear a report with regard 
to collective bargaining matters. At 4:10 p.m., without discus- 
sion, it was moved, seconded and on roll call. 



I 



VOTED 



To enter executive session, 



Trustees Burack, Crain, Dennis, Dion, Krumsiek, 
0' Sullivan, Popko , Robertson, Sawtelle, Shearer and Troy voted fo: - 
the motion, as did Chairman Healey, President Patterson, Dr. Grady 
representing Trustee Fielding, and Mr. Barrus representing Truste 
Winthrop. Trustees Anrig, Breyer, Dukakis, Kassler, Marks, McNei 
McNulty, Morgenthau, Okin and Spiller were absent. 

At 5:10 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To conclude the executive session and to adjourn the 
meeting. 




Dorothy Eictiel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-20- 



I 



I 



ATTENDANCE: 



I 



! 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

September 13, 1978; 2:30 p.m. 
Chancellor's Conference Room 
Administration Building 
University of Massachusetts/Boston 



Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Knapp; 
Trustees Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dennis, Dion, Kassler, Krumsiek, 
Marks, McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Romer , 
Sawtelle, Shearer, and Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee 
Anrig; Ms. Pinck representing Trustee Dukakis; Dr. Grady repre- 
senting Trustee Fielding; Ms. Owens representing Trustee Okin; Mr 
Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop ; Treasurer Brand; Assistant 
Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Trustees Absent : Trustee Robertson 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. Hester, Vice President for Management; Mr. Searson, 
General Counsel 

UM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Professor Fletcher, Faculty Repre- 
sentative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Professor Martin, Faculty 
Representative 

UM/Worcester : Chancellor Bulger 

The meeting came to order at 2:50 p.m. Chairman Healey; UM/Amherst and 

said that several issues had been raised in the just adjourned UM/Boston — 

Executive Committee and that these should be dealt with first. Chancellors' 

One had to do with the suggestion that the search for a Chancellor Searches 
at UM/Boston be delayed. 

Trustee Dennis urged that the search process not be de- 
layed. Chairman Healey asked if anyone had a contrary opinion. 
Trustee Kassler said he did and that he had expressed his reasons 
for this at the Executive Committee meeting. Trustee Burack said 
she favored delaying the search. Conducting three searches at one 
would be a difficult task. Professor Martin agreed with this. 
The Boston campus now had two decanal searches going on and the 
Provost was thinking of taking a short leave for scholarly pur- 
poses. To have a Chancellor's search going on at the same time 
would not be impossible but it would be less than desirable. 

President Knapp said his feeling was that the search 
should begin, despite Chancellor Van Ummersen' s very effective 
leadership. The campus had a number of problems of a long-range 






Board 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

nature requiring continuity and a unifying sense of direction. 
The longer the University delayed in addressing those problems, 
the harder they would be to overcome. The need was to get perma- 
nent leadership that could work with the campus community in get- 
ting the University to move forward, so as to realize a number of 
exciting possibilities. Postponing the search would not be advis 
able. 

Dr. Grady suggested it might be worthwhile to consider 
initiating a search with a distant target date. Trustee Morgen- 
thau said that this suggestion had value in theory, but in practice 
it could discourage good candidates from applying. 

There was no further discussion and it was 

MOVED : To delay the initiation of the search for a 

Chancellor of the University of Massachusetts 
at Boston. 

The motion was seconded and upon vote, it was defeated, 

MOTION DENIED. 



The second item to be addressed, Chairman Healey said, 
was that of the eligibility of the acting Chancellor to be a can 
didate for the Chancellorship. Trustee Crain said he had listened 
carefully to the discussion regarding this matter, particularly 
Trustee Kassler's remarks, and he was persuaded that the Board 
could not change its position. Ms. Pinck concurred. Trustee 
0' Sullivan said he would like to serve on the search committee but 
would be leaving the Board in April. Chairman Healey said he 
would appoint him to the committee. The Chairman then said it 
seemed clear that the Board was in agreement and that the stipu- 
lation that the acting Chancellor be ineligible should stand. 

Chairman Healey then asked if there were any objections 
to the proposal made during the Executive Committee meeting that 
not less than three candidates for each of the Chancellorships be 
brought to the full Board. There were no objections. 

Chairman Healey then asked if the proposal that there 
be a committee of not less than four Trustees to serve, in effect 
as a bridge between the search committees and the Board was ac- 
ceptable. Trustee Burack said she would accept it. 

Chairman Healey asked if there were any other issues to 
be resolved. Trustee Crain said it was not clear to him as to 
what would happen in case a candidate appeared to be a likely 
choice for both UM/Boston and UM/Amherst. President Knapp said 
that this was a real possibility. He noted that the ad hoc Trus- 
tee Committee would be of use in sorting out this kind of question 



f 



I 



-2- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Breyer said that the issue of the number of 
candidates to be brought to the Board had been passed by very 
quickly. He said his own feeling was that there were a number of 
important issues that the University faced. Given this, it was 
supremely important that there be put in place a team of execu- 
tives who felt they could work together and deal with these sub- 
stantive issues. Because of this, it was of primary importance to 
him that the people chosen as Chancellors be able to work enthu- 
siastically with the President and that they be people the Presi- 
dent wishes to work with him. If this was in agreement with the 
general view of the Board, then if two or three candidates were 
being brought to the Board, and the President's position formally 
and informally was being actively sought with that idea in mind, 
that was fine. But if the two or three candidates were in some 
sense to be separated from the president, he was concerned. Tru- 
stee Burack said this was not the case. Trustee Breyer then asked 
Trustee Burack if it was her understanding that what he had just 
described was what she wished to happen, which would involve the 
President in giving his first choice, or in ranking the candidates 
as to acceptability. Trustee Breyer said that in his view this 
was the President's prerogative and that all Board members seemed 
to agree with this. President Knapp said that, knowing the Presi- 
dent as he did, he was sure that this is what would happen. 

Trustee Burack asked for clarification in regard to 
the ad hoc committee, specifically whether it was in addition to 
the two search committees. Chairman Healey said that it was. 



Board 
9/13/78 



seconded and 



VOTED 



UM/Amherst and 
UM/Boston— 
Search Pro- 
cedures for 
Chancellors 
(Doc. T78-116 
as amended) 



There was no further discussion and it was moved, 



To approve the initiation of searches for the 
Chancellors of the Amherst and the Boston cam- 
puses according to the general procedures as 
outlined in Doc. T78-116 as amended with ap- 
proval of the composition of the search com- 
mittees to be scheduled for the October meet- 
ing of the Board, and to recommend further that 
the Chairman be empowered to appoint faculty 
and student members to the search committees 
upon recommendation of the President from nomi- 
nations to be submitted by appropriate campus 
bodies no later than Friday, October 6. 



The Chairman then asked for approval of the minutes 
of the previous meeting. Without discussion it was moved, 
seconded and 



VOTED : To approve the minutes of the August 2, 1978 meeting; Approval of 



of the Board of Trustees. 



-3- 



Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



Board 
9/13/78 

President' s 
Address 



Report of 
Executive 
Committee 

UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence 
in the Ap- 
pointment 
of Vice Chan- 
cellor for 
Student Af- 
fairs (Doc. 
T78-115) 

UM/Amherst — 
Personnel 
Action (Doc. 
T78-114) 

Executive 
Compensation 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey then called on the President for his 
agenda. President Knapp then delivered the address which is at- 
tached to these minutes. (See Addendum I.) 

The Board then heard the Reports of Standing Com^ 
mittees. Chairman Healey said the first item dealt with by the 
Executive Committee had been Concurrence in the Appointment of 
Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs — UM/Amherst (Doc. 178-114,-115) 



I 



Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED : 



To concur with the President in the appoint- 
ment by the Chancellor of Dennis L. Madson 
as Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs at 
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 
as detailed in Doc. T78-115. 



and further 



VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as set forth 
in Trustee Document T78-114. 

Chairman Healey then asked President Knapp to com- 
ment on Study of Executive Compensation . President Knapp said that 
such a study was needed in order to provide the Trustees and the 
administration with current comparative data on executive compen- 
sation at institutions of higher learning. At several recent meeth 
ings there had been discussions of salaries for individual posi- 
tions, and it would be helpful to have a context within which to 
review such considerations. There were a number of vacancies and 
there would be appointments being recommended and all who partici- 
pated should have an understanding of the competitive world in 
which the University found itself. 

President Knapp said it should be noted that there 
were not a great many people of high quality in the market place 
who were extremely interested in positions in academic adminis- 
tration at present. Universities were not the most delightful 
places in which to function as an administrator. The competition 
among people seeking such jobs was not very high; however, the 
competition among institutions to hire administrators was very 
keen. Furthermore salaries for academic administrators at both 
public and private institutions had increased, even more in the 
public than in the private sector. These were all factors which 
would have to be taken into account in making decisions in indi- 
vidual cases. The President said it was his intention to have the 
study completed early in October. 

Trustee Crain, speaking as one who had had consider- 
able experience in such surveys, said it might be of use to have 
the staff conducting the survey talk with the Committee on Budget 
and Finance as to their approach to the study. President Knapp 
said he had discussed this matter with Trustee Crain, and mentioned 
that there were at least two major national surveys which seemed 
to contain all the data necessary to compile the study. 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Burack asked if the study could be evaluative 
in the sense of an examination of the need for the positions in 
question. President Knapp said that there were two things to be 
kept in mind — first, that positions varied greatly from campus to 
campus and that there was not necessarily comparability between 
positions which had similar titles. Secondly, speaking only of 
the central administration, he said he wished to determine what 
positions were necessary. When vacancies were being examined, it 
would be appropriate to see if they were necessary, and this 
would be an ongoing part of the administrative process. 

Chairman Healey said those at the meeting might wish 
to know that it was the intention of the Trustees, on completion 
of the regular agenda, to go into executive session to discuss 
collective bargaining matters and litigation in which the Board 
was involved. 

The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Student Affairs. Trustee Shearer said the Committee had met and 
discussed two items — the Appointment of the Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs and Rules and Regulations for the Classification 



Board 
9/13/78 



Rules and 



of Students for Tuition Purposes (Doc. T74-073A) . The discussion Regulations 



for the Classi- 
fication of 
Students for 
Tuition Pur- 
poses (Doc. 



on the classification of students was devoted primarily to sorting 
out areas of concern, one of the most important of which was the 
need to clarify the term "domicile." The Committee discussed the j 
many ways in which the term was interpreted. Another area of con-j 
cern was the difference between the government's definition of 
"residence" and that of the University. It had been agreed that an T74-073A) 
ad hoc committee would be formed to study further the Rules and 
Regulations. Also, it had been suggested that study be state-wide,, 
in the hope that any resulting guidelines could be the same in all 
state institutions. Trustee Shearer concluded her report by notinjg 
that the Board had already dealt with the matter of the Vice Chan- 
cellor. 



Trustee Troy, reporting for the Committee on Faculty 
and Educational Policy, said there was only one item to be acted 
on — Approval of September 1978 Graduation Lists — UM/ Amherst 
(Doc. T78-118) . There were 1,037 bachelor's degrees to be awarded, 
261 master's, and 139 doctor's degrees, and 9 certificates of grad- 
uate studies, making a total of 1,446 degrees and certificates. 
There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED : To approve the September 1978 preliminary 

graduation lists at the University of Massa- 
chusetts at Amherst (Doc. T78-118) , subject 
to the completion of all requirements as 
certified by the Recorder of the campus. 

In the absence of Trustee Crain, Chairman of the Budget 
and Finance Committee, Chairman Healey called for the report of 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Fac- 
ulty and Edu- 
cational 
policy 



UM/ Amherst — 
Approval of 
September 1978 
Graduation 
Lists (Doc. 
T78-118) 



-5- 



Board 
9/13/78 

Report of Ad 
Hoc Committee 
on Board 
Operations 
and Organi- 
zation 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

the Committee on Board Operations and Organization. Trustee 
Burack said she had written a second memorandum, which all Trustees 
should have received in early August, concerning some of the recomf- 
mendations for which Board action was being sought. She expressed 
her appreciation to those Trustees who did write to her in response 
to the memorandum and said she assumed that those Trustees who did 
not writer and offer objections were in substantial agreement with! 
the recommendations. 



Trustee Burack said it was her intention to recommend 
action on three items in the memorandum, and to postpone action on 
the other items until such time as the Trustees had had an oppor- 
tunity to comment more fully. 

The first recommendation, Trustee Burack continued, had 
to do with the appointment of an Administrative Secretary to the 
Board. She said it was her understanding that the law required 
that there be a Secretary of the Board who is an officer of the 
Board. In her discussions with President Knapp , he had recom- 
mended that there be a person in the central office to discharge 
whatever legal requirements there were, and that this not be the 
same person who serves the Board in the role of administrative sec 
retary . 



Trustee Burack said she wished to make it quite clear 
that the Committee did not want as the functional secretary of the 
Board, by whatever title, someone who would be a high level execu- 
tive of the University because then the role of that person would 
become somewhat confused. Therefore the Committee was recommending 
that the Trustees authorize the appointment of an Administrative 
Secretary to the Board who would serve as the chief person in the 
Secretary's Office, and that office would in fact be responsible 
and responsive to the Board for all Board affairs. The level of 
salary which had been discussed for the post was in the $18,000 to 
22,000 range. Further, it was suggested that at least some Trus- 
tees have an opportunity to interview the candidate before he or 
she is hired. 

Secondly, Trustee Burack continued, it had been brought 
to the attention of the Committee that one of the most time-con- 
suming things in the Secretary's Office had always been the lengthy 
searches for documentation and information in response to requests 
These requests were quite frequent and the searches were lengthy 
because of the lack of indexing or codification of Board votes and 
actions over the hundred odd years since the founding of the Uni- 
versity. Therefore, the Committee was recommending that the index- 
ing of documents relative to Trustee and University policy be in- 
stituted as soon as possible. Thirdly, while not wishing to pro- 
hibit anyone else, the Committee was recommending that the Assis- 
tant to the Secretary be asked to undertake the recommended index- 
ing. 



I 



I 



-6- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Troy asked for clarification of the central 
office position as an officer of the Board. President Knapp said 
he had served at a number of institutions where an arrangement 
similar to the one being proposed had existed. That is, a senior 
officer of the University — for example, the general counsel — ser- 
ved as secretary to the Board, and there was an assistant secretary 
who handled all the routine work necessary for the Board's opera- 
tion. The Committee was suggesting that the latter role be dis- 
charged by the administrative secretary. 

Chairman Healey said the reporting relationships 
should be clarified. Was the proposal to have a secretary of the 
University, and in addition, an administrative secretary for the 
Board, each with a different line of reporting relationship? 
Could it be said that what was being suggested was an assistant 
secretary reporting to the secretary of the University? 



Trustee Burack said this was not what was being pro- 
posed. The administrative secretary would be responsible to the 
Board. The dual relationship of the Secretary, that of serving 
the President as well as the Board, had been a problem in the past 
If this dual relationship was envisioned, Trustee Burack said she 
would withdraw the recommendation and rephrase it to indicate an 
arrangement wherein the administrative secretary discharged all 
the routine work of the Board, and the role of the Secretary was 
restricted to legal matters. 

Trustee Kassler asked whether there is a legal re- 
quirement that the Board have a Secretary and if that Secretary 
had to be a member of the Board. Counsel Sear son said there were 
no such legal requirements in the sense of general or special stat 
utes. Having a Secretary was the will of the Board as expressed 
in its By-laws. Chairman Healey said that whatever was decided, 
there would still have to be a certifying officer of the Univer- 
sity. 



Trustee Breyer said that this proposal had seemed non- 
controversial at first. However, the discussion about reporting ref 
lationships had left him confused. He said his concern was that 
there was some issue here which he did not understand, in which 
case he did not think the matter should be decided. Chairman 
lealey said he just wanted to make everything understood. He said 
A7hat was proposed was that the reporting relationship of the admin^- 
Lstrative secretary would be to the Board. His question was whether 
or not there was need for a "Secretary of the University" to serve 
as certifying office as well as an administrative secretary. Trus-- 
:ee Burack said that this was her understanding. She noted that the 
Secretary of the Board of State Colleges performed all the routine j 
administrative Board matters and there was a different person who 
served as certifying officer. 

Trustee Krumsiek said that he was confused. If, as 



-7- 



Board 
9/13/78 



Board 
9/13/78 



Report of 
Committee on 
Budget and 
Finance 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

seemed to be the case, there would be a new position that would 
be interfaced with and located in the President's Office, but the 
person would be reporting directly to the Board, then the Trustees 
were talking about an administrative assistant to the Board at a 
salary of from $18,000 to 22,000 and that person would not be in- 
terested in performing the routine tasks. This would indicate the 
need for a secretary to the administrative secretary. This meant 
a substantial number of new dollars in the President's or the 
Board's budget, therefore, it was not a decision to be made too 
quickly. Trustee Burack said that it should be understood that 
all the Committee had envisaged was someone who would be the chief 
person in the present Office of the Secretary. 

Chairman Healey said he did not see any problem in 
having such a person report as a matter of line responsibility to 
the Board, and to report to the President administratively from 
the standpoint of getting the work done. This is a very common 
situation, as in the case of an internal auditor who reported di- 
rectly to the Board on a line basis, but administratively was sub- 
ject to the President's directions regarding routine matters. 

Trustee Crain, speaking for the benefit of Trustee 
Krumsiek, said that the proposed appointment would fill a vacant 
position at considerable savings. 



I 



seconded and 



VOTED 



There was no further discussion, and it was moved, 



To adopt the following three recommendations 
of the Ad Hoc Committee on Board Operations 
and Organization: 

1. To establish the position of Adminis- 
trative Secretary to the Board of Trus- 
tees . 

2. To institute as soon as possible the 
indexing of documents relative to 
Trustee and University policies, 
practices and actions. 

3. To recommend that John Miller, Assis- 
tant to the Secretary, be asked to 
undertake the indexing process. 



The Board then heard the report of the Committee 

on Budget and Finance. Chairman Crain said that the Committee had 

a series of votes to recommend, as was normal at this time. 

Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 



-8- 



I 



I 



VOTED 



and further 
VOTED : 

and also 

VOTED : 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

To approve the FY 1979 Revenue-Based Bud- 
get, University of Massachusetts at Amherst 
(Doc. T78-087). 



To approve the FY 1979 Fee-Based Budget, 
University of Massachusetts at Boston 
(Doc. T78-111). 

To establish a University of Massachusetts 
Medical School Student Service Trust Fund, 
which shall have as its purpose the support 
of student activities and miscellaneous serv- 
ices provided for students, as more fully 
described in Doc. T78-076. This self-sup- 
porting trust fund shall consist of annual 
fees charged to all undergraduate students. 

Further, to adopt an annual fee of $15 for 
said activities and services. 



and further 



VOTED : 



To approve the FY 1979 Fee-Based Budget, 
University of Massachusetts at Worcester 
(Doc. T78-112A). 



With regard to the approval of the FY 1979 Operating 

Budget (Doc. T78-100) , Trustee Crain said that it should be noted 

;that the Committee's recommendation was contingent upon provision I 

being made in the budget for remedial action on audit deficiencies; 

that have been previously outlined; and that, as the President had 

|outlined, provision for contract maintenance activities, which the 

Committee believed were going to be expensive, be made. Finally, 

the Committee had discussed fully the rationale for the increases 

jin the Institute for Governmental Services' budget and had been 

assured that as the filling of the position slots was considered, 

the criteria that would be applied would insure the professional 

competence of those being hired. Trustee Burack asked for clari- 

ification of the 83 percent increase in the IGS budget. Trustee 

Crain said this had been discussed fully at the Budget and Finance 

meeting and the increase was largely due to the effort to move 

from trust funds to state funds. There was no further discussion 

and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the FY 1979 Operating Budget 
for the University of Massachusetts as 
contained in Doc. T78-100. 



-9- 



Board 
9/13/78 

UM/Amherst — 
FY80 Fee-Based 
Budget (Doc. 
T78-087) 



UM/Boston— 
FY79 Fee-Based 
Budget (Doc. 
T78-111) 

UM/Worcester — 
Student Serv- 
ices Trust Fund 
and Fee (Doc. 
T78-076) 



UM/Worcester — 
FY79 Fee-Based 
Budget (Doc. 
T78-112A) 

FY79 Operating 
Budget (Doc. 
T78-100) 



Board 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



FY80 Main- Regarding the FY 1980 Maintenance Budget Request 

tenance Bud- '(Doc. T78-101) , Chairman Crain said the Committee had asked that 
get Request several items be noted before Board approval. First, the Commit- 
(Doc. T78- tee was anxious to see a prioritizing of items that were currently 
101 as amen- funded from trust funds in order to consider the most effective and 
ded) valid way to request state funds for these items. Second, the Com- 
mittee had asked for an analysis of deferred maintenance. Finally, 
the Committee had also requested an analysis of which externally 
funded activities receive overhead funds by the funding agency. 
There was no discussion and it was moved and seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the Maintenance Budget Request 
for Fiscal Year 1980 (Doc. T78-101) as 
amended to add $400,000 to the 01 ac- 
count request for UM/Boston. 

Ohio Land — The final recommendation of the Budget and Finance Corn- 

Deed of Ease-mittee concerned the granting of an easement to the City of Colum- 
ment (Doc. bus which would enhance the value of the University's Ohio Land 
T78-113) (Doc. T78-113). On motion made and seconded, it was 

VOTED : To authorize the Acting Treasurer, Robert H. 
•Brand, to execute on its behalf a deed of 
easement to the City of Columbus, Ohio as 
more particularly described and set forth in 
Trustee Document T78-113 and to accept the 
City's offer of $600 as compensation for 
said easement as set forth in its letter of 
August 1,1978, attached to said Trustee Docu- 
ment; further to authorize the Acting Trea- 
surer to take such other action and to execute 
such other documents as may be necessary to ef- 
fectuate the granting of this easement and to 
ensure receipt of said compensation. 

Chairman Crain concluded his report by thanking the ad- 
ministration for the timely delivery of support materials. 

President's The Board then briefly discussed the President's inau- 

Inauguration Iguration on October 29, 1978. There was general agreement that the 

day would be President Knapp ' s and that he should arrange matters 

as he saw fit. 



» 



I 



Statement of 
Professor 
Brogan, UM/ 
Amherst 

UM/Amherst — 
Petition of 
Tenants in 
University 
Apartments 



Professor Fletcher asked the Chairman to permit Profes- 
sor Brogan to make a statement to the Board. Permission was given 
and Professor Brogan' s statement is appended to these minutes. 
(See Addendum II.) 

There followed a brief discussion on a petition received 



-10- 



I 



Board 
9/13/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

from certain tenants in the Amherst campus' family housing com- 
plex. There was agreement that the students should continue to 
pay rent as previously approved by the Trustees but that the Com- 
mittees on Student Affairs and Budget and Finance should address 
the concerns in the petition. At the conclusion of the discussiqn 
it was moved, seconded and 



VOTED : To direct the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst to enforce the fees established 
for family housing by the Board of Trustees 
on May 3, 1978 as set forth in Doc. T78-054. 
Further, that the petitions of the family 
housing tenants dated July 26, 1978 and Au- 
gust 15, 1978 be referred to the Committees 
on Budget and Finance and Student Affairs. 

Chairman Healey then called for a motion to enter execu- Executive 
tive session in order to discuss matters relating to collective Session 
bargaining and litigation. The Board, he said, would not recon- 
vene in open session. 

At 4:40 p.m. it was moved, seconded and on roll call 



VOTED 



To enter executive session. 



Trustees Burack, Crain, Dennis, Dion, Kassler, Krumsiek, 
Marks, McNulty, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Popko , Sawtelle, Shearer, 
and Troy voted for the motion; as did Chairman Healey, President 
Knapp and Mr. Callahan, representing Trustee Anrig; Ms. Pinck, 
representing Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Owens, representing Trustee Okin 
and Mr. Barrus , representing Trustee Winthrop. Trustees Breyer , 
Fielding, McNeil and Robertson were absent. 

At 5:20 p.m. the meeting was adjourned. 




Dorothy Eich^l 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-11- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



NOT USED 



I 



I 



I 



ADDENDUM NO 



Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board: 



This is the first chance which I have had to express formal- 
ly my appreciation for the opportunity you have given me to 
serve the interests of higher learning in the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts. Of all the states of the Union none has 
contributed more than this to the intellectual growth and 
development of the nation. I pledge myself to work with you, 
the faculty, the staff, the students, and the people of the 
Commonwealth, in a mutual endeavor which will place the Uni- 
versity of Massachusetts at the center of this tradition. 



As one of the newest members of the University community, I 
believe that I can say without prejudice that you should take 
pride in the institution for which you bear the ultimate re- 
sponsibility. I base this judgment in part on the observa- 
tions of former colleagues. One, a distinguished scholar re- 
cently retired, observed to me several months ago, that in 
less than twenty years he had witnessed the development of a 
true, major University Center at Amherst. Another, a scholar 
and parent of a student at Amherst, spoke positively and 
glowingly of the academic and personal experiences available 
there. Others sent me off to Massachusetts armed with lists 
of colleagues whom they respected in their fields. Indeed, 
you can be assured that on every campus, in a variety of 
disciplines and fields of study, you have a faculty contain- 
ing scholars of the highest quality. 



But you have, from my personal observation, something more 
as well. During a recent visit to the Amherst campus I en- 
countered a department engaged in first-rate science and 
graduate education - simultaneously interested in and ac- 
tively concerned with the education of undergraduates. 
Departments with such balance are rare within the contem- 
porary university, and if there are more like them within 
the University of Massachusetts, we can face the future 
with confidence. I have also talked with faculty and ad- 
ministrators who appreciate, to a far greater degree than 
I have known elsewhere, that we have entered a new era of 
higher education, that change and vitality remain possible 
in a steady-state world but only through difficult choices 
and the painful process of reallocating resources. 



During the months ahead, I hope to gain more extensive 
knowledge of the University as a whole. I have visited, 
as I have said, the Amherst campus for a day and a half 
this summer and in the next several weeks, I will make 
similar visits to Boston and Worcester. In addition, I 
plan to visit each campus regularly throughout the year 
and hope to meet with as many groups as possible. 



t 



1 



I 



-2- 



From my visits to Boston and Amherst this summer, as well 
as conversations with many of you, faculty, and adminis- 
trators, I have concluded that there is a sizable agenda 
to address if we are to capitalize on the University's 
strengths. Several items on the agenda are already under 
review, and I wish to acknowledge the leadership which 
Franklin Patterson has given the University since last 
January in such matters as graduate education, planning 
on the Boston campus and internal operation. 



Before turning to the specifics, I should like to state 
three overarching concepts which I hope will guide us in 
our work. 

FIRST , We are a university, different — as all 
universities are — from other forms of organization, 
public and private. Our basic concern is, and must be, 
with academic substance — the quality of teaching, 
research, and service; the quality of the settings in 
which students and faculty interact and learning takes 
place; the continuing search for new knowledge and new 
ways in which the University may fulfill its historic 
dedication to learning and service. It is all too easy 
in the current time to become overwhelmed by organiza- 
tional matters and to allow them, rather than the aca- 
demic substance they support, to preoccupy our thought, 
time, and energy. 

A SECOND fundamental concern is with institutional 
integrity, be it in the academic, managerial, or fiscal 
spheres. This University is large and complex. It would 
be surprising if from time to time lapses in integrity 
should not develop. But even relatively minor lapses can 
have a seriously erosive effect, distracting attention 
from direction and substance. 



THIRD , we need to recognize that the pursuit of aca- 
demic purpose and safeguarding institutional integrity 
are the responsibilities of no single individual or group, 
in either structural or behavioral terms. The University 
Governance Document is clear with respect to the exercise 
of formal authority and recognizes principles of inter- 
dependence and joint effort. Yet, as I am sure all of us 
recognize out of our own experience, it is in the informal 
aspects of an institution — in the attitudes, spirit, and 
outlook of its members — that one finds a University's 
true character. The quality, the reputation, the integrity 
of the University of Massachusetts are then shared concerns 
and shared responsibilities of all - of trustees, faculty, 
administrators, students, and staff. 



i 



i 



* 



-3- 



Let me turn now to the agenda itself. The list is cer- 
tainly not exhaustive and is based upon limited experi- 
ence. I am sure that changes will occur as we proceed 
during the next year. In setting forth the agenda I 
move from the particular to the general. 



1. Leadership . We need to move as expeditiously as 
possible to fill leadership positions both on the cam- 
puses and in the central University office, most espe- 
cially the three Chancellorships, the Vice Presidency 
for Management and several key second-level positions 
on the campuses and in the central office. Two prin- 
cipal searches are already underway — those for the 
Chancellor at Worcester and the Vice President for 
Management, and two are on the agenda for this meeting. 
I hope that once these positions are filled we can as- 
sure the University of genuine stability and continuity 
in leadership. 

2. Personnel and Employee Relations . Once formal fac- 
ulty collective bargaining has been completed we will 
need to take two steps: first, to provide appropriate 
organizational arrangements for personnel and contract 
administration on a University-wide basis, and, second, 
to bring the various governance documents into accord 
with agreements which have been reached. I have initi- 
ated plans for the first step, and members of the staff 
have started to analyze the relationship of the draft 
collective bargaining agreement to existing governance 
documents. 



3. External Relations . Although my assessment is not 
yet complete, I believe that we must give immediate at- 
tention to a coordinated University-wide approach to 
external relations which will encompass University pub- 
lications, development efforts in the search for supple- 
mental funding, and relationships with both Alumni and 
the public. 

4. Reorganization of Public Higher Education . As you 
know the Special Commission on the Reorganization of 
Higher Education is meeting for the first time today. 
Given the dramatic changes which are occurring and which 
will continue to occur in the economic, demographic and 
social environment in which universities and colleges 
operate, the recommendations of the Commission will be 
of critical importance to our own University. We should 
seek to develop a University perspective on reorganiza- 
tion that not only preserves our own legitimate interests 
but also promotes the general well-being of publicly sup- 
ported education within the Commonwealth. 



I 



I 



t 



-4- 



5. Academic Vitality . I would like to identify four 
aspects of academic affairs which I believe are espe- 
cially significant for future vitality. None are unique 
to Massachusetts, a fact which by no means minimizes 
their significance. 



A. On each campus and especially at Amherst, we 
have a serious need for resources in support of 
the teaching/learning function — teaching equip- 
ment, especially in the sciences; relatively 
routine supplies; and library acquisitions. The 
budget request for fiscal year 1980 places a high 
priority on these items. 



B. When I visited Amherst this summer, I asked 
the deans to provide me with an inventory of 
recent faculty resignations. I did so in part 
because I have known at least four individuals 
who have moved from Amherst to other universities 
in the recent past. All were first-rate, with 
great promise in their fields. We cannot afford 
such losses and every effort must be made to en- 
sure that we provide the conditions, only partial- 
ly economic, which attract scholar/teachers of 
the highest order to our campuses. 

C. A distinguishing characteristic of the land- 
grant university is that from the beginning it 
accepted — to quote from a volume I co-authored — 
"the responsibility to serve the community by 
solving the problems which perplex it". Through- 
out the University we have an impressive array of 
programs dedicated to this purpose. Some however 
are relatively isolated and disconnected, and there 
is reason to believe that we can do more than we 
now do. The time is right, in my judgment, to 
assess the scope, focus and locus of assistance to 
community problem solving within this land grant 
University. 



D. One of the cliches of academic life is that 
Universities are slow to change. In certain re- 
spects this is true; in others nothing could be 
further from the truth. Academic disciplines and 
fields of knowledge are in a state of continuous 
change. New emphases and new opportunities for 
exploration emerge continuously. So also do the 
interests and concerns of students change. No 
challenge will be greater than that of finding 
ways to accommodate such changes and to capital- 



t 



I 



* 



-5- 



ize on new opportunities in the decade ahead. 
No challenge will be more important to the qual- 
ity of the education we offer our students, to 
the reputation of the University as a center for 
scholarly distinction, or to our capacity to serve 
the needs of the Commonwealth. 



6. Planning . After a good many years of experience, 
I have come to the conclusion that sharply focused 
planning efforts often are more productive of action 
and results than generalized comprehensive planning. 
I believe there are at least four, inter-related areas 
which require planning as preludes to future decision 
making. 



A. I would like to see the University develop a 
three- to five-year fiscal planning model, one 
which would permit us to project anticipated costs 
and revenues. A fiscal planning model can never 
be a hard and fast guide to annual budgeting but 
it does provide a mechanism for projecting the 
directions in which the University is moving and 
gives a good indication of how well we are approx- 
imating the attainment of the necessary resources 
for academic purposes. Such a fiscal planning 
model is only as good as the data which undergirds 
it and to move in this direction will necessarily 
mean improving the data base and coordination of 
data collection throughout the University. 



B. Second, I believe that we need better informa- 
tion than we now appear to have on enrollment trends, 
both with respect to the college age population and 
the potential older student and continuing educa- 
tion population. Only with such data can we validly 
project the scope and type of programs which will 
be needed and the resources required to support them. 



C. Like most Universities we are faced with a 
clutch of physical facility problems — deferred 
maintenance and building modification to accom- 
modate academic change being two of the most sig- 
nificant. The deferred maintenance analysis on the 
Amherst campus was a first-rate beginning in the 
determination of the dimensions of that problem. 
Further planning with respect to the potential 
for capital outlay will be necessary. 



f 



i 



-6- 



D. Ongoing general campus planning directed toward 
the review and definition of mission and the balance 
among programs, undergraduate and graduate, have 
become an essential part of contemporary academic 
life, as both resources and growth have begun to 
level off. The long-range planning review on the 
Boston campus and in the Trustee Committee begun 
this past year will need to be stepped up and ex- 
tended over time to others. Campus planning must, 
of course, take place in a context and relate to 
both the University as a whole and other aspects 
of publicly supported higher education within the 
Commonwealth. 



7. The University as a System . I have left until last 
the University's development as a full-fledged System. 
This University, like all, is an evolving institution. 
Clearly as new campuses have come into being and a cen- 
tral office has been established, tensions have developed 
in the evolutionary process. 



Massachusetts, while the largest public University System 
in New England, is relatively small as public universities 
go. It is indeed small enough to achieve a significant 
degree of unity and coherence, and this is an end toward 
which we should strive. To help move us in this direction, 
I have recently asked the Chancellors and Vice Presidents 
to meet with me regularly as an Executive Council for the 
discussion of University-wide policies and problems. 



At the same time each campus is a distinct entity, each 
with its own mission and each with its own mode of opera- 
tion. To the fullest extent possible, decision making 
should reside on the campus, for it is there that knowl- 
edge of and sensitivity to immediate academic and operat- 
ing needs is centered. In summary, we need to continue 
to strive for an appropriate mix of unity and autonomy 
which accords with contemporary problems and needs. 

Those of us with University-wide responsibilities — be 
we administrators or trustees — should by the nature of 
things, be concerned principally with the policies and 
processes which affect general University well-being. 
All must be aware, however, that to be accountable we need 
to understand what is taking place throughout the system. 
We should be careful about substituting our judgment for 
that of those on campus, and we will most surely exercise 
this caution if the campuses conduct their affairs with 
care and attention and bring creativity and imagination 
to them. 



t 



I 



f 



-7- 



I should like to end with one final set of observations. 
Universities are human organizations with qualities of 
both fragility and resilience. Throughout the American 
university world, the University of Massachusetts is 
known as a somewhat battered institution. As is often 
the case, the reputation — from my observation — 
exceeds the reality. Nevertheless, I believe that the 
time is clearly at hand for inner renewal, for quiet, 
for reflection on the things that matter most to academic 
institutions. This is a University of great strength and 
even greater potential. I am confident that all of us 
who have responsibility for its well being can work to- 
gether toward common goals, can provide the people of 
the Commonwealth with an academic enterprise — with a 
University — in which they can and will take genuine 
pride. 



f 



f 



• 



. 



' ( / / 
ADDENDUM NO . 2 tO ° <K' V° l c( ^ 



Remarks to the Board of Trustees by Howard Brogan, Commonwealth 

Professor of English, September 13, 1978 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for permitting me to speak of my 
concern over the present state of relations between faculty, 
administration and Board of Trustees in our University. This 
concern is deeply personal and I speak primarily as an indi- 
vidual who had previously promised to communicate to you my 
view of the importance of faculty governance in the operation of 
the University, as I now proceed to do. 



Let me begin by expressing my, satisfaction 7 with parts of 



nfayJjXA/fa ^u^WBol IttMa-qcrU'L tf.XTUt&frXj. C^f^^jt ■, 

the contract, which nave /been<? initialed by both Sides. You will 

remember in my remarks to you last June, that I said then that 

I had joined the faculty bargaining agent not primarily for 

economic motives but in the hope of improving the faculty role 

in University governance. I believe that those who think that 

faculty dissatisfaction on our campus is mainly the result of 

the severe erosion of our purchasing power are dead wrong. The 

votes of no confidence in our previous President and Provost 

had nothing to do with economic issues but everything 



to do with what the faculty belis/ed to be blatant violations 
of traditional faculty governance. 

I believe the articles on grievance and other governance 
issues which have been initialled, if they are carried out in 
a liberal spirit, will quickly and greatly reduce the faculty 
dissatisfaction which has previously poisoned relationships with 
our administration. Therefore, I want these provisions to go 
into effect as soon as possible. 

This is not to be taken as indicating that I believe the 
faculty's economic rewards are satisfactory. They are so un- 
satisfactory that they are resulting in the continuing loss of 
some of our finest faculty members; but it is obvious that 
this is a matter which neither the Board nor the faculty can 
control. 



I 



i 



Remarks 2 September 13, 1978 

It has been my experience that serious problems with the 
faculty are always matters of governance, i.e., of faculty 
participation in the operation of the University. I came to 
this institution from another in which the facult^had forced 
the resignation of a president whom I regard as the best 
academic manager — as opposed to academic statesman — I have 
known, over his insistence on firing a young professor from 
whom he had wrongfully withheld tenure, and the faculty rebelled 
against him even though he had trebled faculty salaries in 
the ten years of his service. Obviously, their motivation 
went against their economic interest. I have read scores of 
reports by Committee A of AAUP leading to the censure of 
institutions for bad faculty relations, and I cannot recall 
a single instance in which these bad relations were the result 
of inadequate pay. 

When faculty salaries in an institution get behind the 
competition in their institutional category — as ours have 
now done — the most desirable faculty members begin to be 
lured away, quietly, one by one — which is now occurring in 
this institution, but there is not the kind of outbreak of 
faculty indignation which we are now experiencing on our campus. 

Some of our more conservative faculty members — and I 
am one of them on this issue — bel^e the parts of our contract 
already approved are so crucial that we would be willing to 
settle other unresolved sections with moderate modifications of 
your agent's last proposal. However, sentiment in our faculty 
is so strong that I am now convinced that the faculty is very 
unlikely to approve the contract without some more substantive 
alterations of some of the% articles. 

During my many years of service on several faculties, I 
have never known so many faculty members to be so angry so early 
in the academic year. Faculties usually return from their 
summer activities well-rested, having put aside remembrance of the 
previous year's tensions, and eager to begin teaching. That is 



r 



I 



* 



Remarks 3 September 13, 1978 

not at all our faculty's mood this fall. I am astonished at the 

number of faculty members who have previously been against faculty 

unionization who share this mood. A considerable minority of the 

faculty bargaining agent's own membership is not only angry at 

what seems to them the recalcitrance of your negotiators but 

are also angry at their own agent for not following a more militant 

policy. 

I believe it is to the interest of all concerned to come 
to a settlement before things get out of hand. I for one am eager 
to nail down what are to me the most important provisions of 
our contract by coming to some compromise acceptable to the 
Board and to both faculties on those remaining. I stress both 
faculties because the articles of association between the MSP 
in Amherst and FSU in Boston require rejection of any contract 
which fails to be approved by at least one third of the votes 
on either campus. The great disparity in the size of the two 
faculties, in tfyeir organization, and in the composition of the 
+wn jELfl pflw i ii i luj - i|ii* ife. require^ some such safeguards if we are to 
maintain our present harmonious relation. An agreement so 
unsatisfactory to either campus as to fail to get more than a 
third of the votes would never hold up anyway. 

I believe an agreement can be worked out, and soon, which 
will not encroach on management rights as these are normally 
exercised in universities of high prestige and which will 
sufficiently satisfy these faculties to command majority approval. 
I fear if faculty dissatisfaction rises to a much higher pitch 
that some outbreak will occur which will drastically alter a 
relationship which is still essentially cooperative though under 
intense stress. The price both sides have to pay to reach an 
agreement seems to me to be too little to justify risking such 
an out^come. 

That is all I have to say. Thank you for the courtesy of 
hearing me out. Please take my remarks, as they are intended, 
not as a threat, but as a warning and as an appeal. 



r 




• 



ATTENDANCE ; 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

October 4, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 

57 Park Plaza Howard Johnsons Motor Lodge 

Conference Hall C/Sixth Floor 

200 Stuart Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 



Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Knapp; 
Trustees Breyer, Crain, Dennis, Dion, Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, 
McNeil, McNulty, Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Popko , Robertson, 
Sawtelle and Troy; Mr. Parks representing Trustee Dukakis; Ms. 
Owens representing Trustee Okin; Mr. Barrus representing Trustee 
Winthrop; Dr. Grady representing Trustee Fielding; Mr. Brand, 
Treasurer; Ms. Eichel, Assistant Secretary; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Trustees : Trustees Anrig, Burack, Romer and Shearer 

Central Administration : Mr. Hester, Acting Vice President for 
Management; Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic Affairs; Mr. 
Searson, General Counsel 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, .Provost and Vice Chan-'- 
cellor for Academic Affairs; Mr. Beatty, Vice Chancellor for Ad- 
ministration and Finance; Mr. Madson, Vice Chancellor for Student 
Affairs; Professor Fletcher, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 
for Administration and Finance; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs; Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs; 
Professor Martin, Faculty Representative 

UM/Worcester : Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs; Pro- 
fessor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting came to order at 2:08 p.m. Chairman Healev 
i ■, .r- , . ii. . i ' Approval of 

asked it there were any corrections or additions to the minutes ,, . 

jz i . . i , . Minutes of 

of the prior meeting of the Board as circulated. There were none] 

and without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the September 13, 1978 
meeting of the Board of Trustees 



Chairman Healey noted that there had been requests 
about affirmative action reports. Based on these requests, 
material had been circulated to the Board. President Knapp said 
that the material in the hands of the Trustees consisted of un- 
digested reports from the campuses. He said that he disliked sub 
mitting such material to the Trustees. However, time had not per- 
mitted analyzing the reports prior to submission. He would remed-"- 
this deficiency at the next meeting. 



Prior Meeting 



Affirmative 
Action Reports 



Board 
10/4/78 



Board and 
Committee 
Schedules 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

President Knapp said he had gone through the reports 
and found them to be similar to other affirmative action reports 
he had read. There was mention of the difficulties caused by the* 
relative smallness of the pool of available candidates and there 
was statistical data concerning the distribution of females and 
minorities throughout the University. The reports did give a good 
sense of what the status of affirmative action was on the campus, 
some of the difficulties, and some of the gains that had been 
made. 

Trustee Dennis said that he agreed that it would be 
helpful to have the reports analyzed. However, there were prob- 
lems that were readily apparent even without analysis. He said 
that it was his hope that in the near future an action plan to 
overcome the difficulties would be available. If possible, this 
plan should be part of the analysis. 

Mr. Parks said that one of the things that bothered 
him was an uncertainty as to which member of the President's 
staff, at the vice-presidential level, was totally responsible 
for seeing that the campus plans were implemented. President 
Knapp said that this fell within Mr. Lynton's responsibility and 
he had one person who was concerned with the review of affirmative 
action. Mr. Parks, asked Mr. Lynton if he had the power to ensure 
that the Chancellors, for example, would adhere to affirmative 
action policies in conducting searches and hiring. Mr. Lynton 
said that that power was, so to speak, at one remove. That re- 
sponsibility lay with the affirmative action officers on each cam- 
pus. What the central administration tried to do was to oversee 
the extent to which those officers carried out that responsibility 
Mr. Parks said that he felt that this should be looked at. He 
felt that the only way that affirmative action worked was when 
there was a person directly responsible to the President who had 
the authority to call the Chancellors and their staffs to task 
about such issues. Without this, there was diffusion of respon- 
sibility and the situation could be so manipulated that the policy 
would not work. 

Chairman Healey then asked the President if he would 
care to comment on the scheduling of meetings of the standing com 
mittees. President Knapp said no complete calendar of meetings 
of the Board and the Committees had as yet been established, 
partly because of some lingering doubts deriving from the report 
of the Board Operations Committee discussed at the September 
Board meeting concerning the scheduling of meetings. The Presi- 
dent said it was his understanding that consideration was being 
given to having meetings of the standing committees every other 
month. 

Chairman Healey said that he had asked the General 
Counsel if the Board had the right to meet as frequently or as 
infrequently as it wished. Counsel had opined that there was no 
requirement that the full Board or any committees thereof had to 



2- 



I 



I 



I 



\ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

meet every month. The governing statute was silent on this issue 
Thus, as the Trustees discussed the recommendations of the Board 
operations committee, there would be an opportunity to re-examine 
the meeting schedules of the Board and its committees. As was 
well known the Trustees were carrying a very heavy schedule of 
meetings. 



Although the Board had tried to ease the burden some- 
what by not scheduling Board meetings in January and July, this 
had not worked out because of special meetings of the Board in 
those two months. As the Trustees perhaps knew, the Board of the 
University of California scheduled committee meetings in one month, 
and Board meetings in the following month, and so on. The Board 
should deal with this situation and it was to be hoped that some 
agreement could be reached. Trustee Troy said that if the commit- 
tees were to meet every other month, things would doubtless work 
just as well and that attendance at meetings might improve. 

Trustee Robertson said consideration might be given to 
| combining committees. Joint committee meetings were not an in- 
frequent occurrence. For example, if Faculty and Educational 
Policy and Student Affairs were to be combined, two meetings of 
and hour and a half each could be compressed into one meeting, 
possibly lasting not much longer. For those who had to travel 
, some distance to attend a meeting, however long, at least half a 
! day was lost. Further, combined committees might result in more 
Trustees being involved in the initial consideration of matters 
which were being proposed for Board action. 

Chairman Healey said that the whole question of the 
orgainization and jurisdictional areas of the Committees should 
be examined. He said he would be for anything that would reduce 
the workload that members of the Board now carried. He noted 
that just reading the support materials of proposed actions was 
an onerous task. 

Speaking for the benefit of those in attendance at the 
| meeting, Chairman Healey said that the Board would now deal with 
the rest of the agenda and then would go into executive session 
to discuss collective bargaining matters. Also, members of the 
union from the Boston campus had asked that a representative of 
the union be allowed to make a presentation to the Board. The 
Chairman said he would accede to the request and the presentation 
would be made on completion of the regular agenda and prior to 
going into executive session. The meeting then turned to the 
Presidential agenda. 



Presient Knapp said he had spent his first month visit 
ing the three campuses and at each had increased his in-depth un- 
derstanding of what was going on. In addition he had met the 
Boards of the public segments of higher education and those of 
some of the private institutions. He said he felt he had about 
covered the map of higher education in the Commonwealth. 



-3- 



Board 
10/4/78 



President ' s 
Comments 



Board 
10/4/78 



UM/Worces 
Chancello 
Statement 

UM/ Boston 
Chancello 

Comments 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

In the course of his many visits he had learned of some 
very significant problems that needed attention. Some of these 
related to long-range planning; others, to operational problems 
such as, for example, the issue of collective bargaining. Presi- 
dent Knapp said he had been encouraged by what he had seen, parti£ 
ularly by the willingness shown to address the problems. 

ter President Knapp then said that Chancellor Bulger was 

r's|not able to attend the meeting and had provided a written state- 
ment for the information of he Trustees. The statement is ap- 
pended to these minutes as Addendum I. 



r s 



UM/Amherst — 
Chancellor's 
Comments 

Report of 
Executive 
Committee 



I 



Chancellor Van Ummersen began her comments by intro- 
ducing the newly elected alternate Faculty Representative to the 
Board, Professor Pearson Hunt from the College of Professional 
Studies. There were a number of things taking place on the cam- 
pus, the Chancellor continued, including co-sponsoring with the 
American Council on Education a conference on Women in Higher 
Education Administration which would take place on November 4. 
Barbara Newell, President of Wellesley College, would give the 
keynote address. 



Chancellor Van Ummersen said that statements on graduate 
education and long-range planning had been completed and forwarded 
to the President's Office for discussion and review by the appro-, 
priate Board committees. Finally, the College of Arts and Sci- 
ences was offering a series of seminars, under a Ford Foundation 
grant, to aid faculty in the development of new core courses for 
the College's recently approved new cirriculum. 

Chancellor Bromery said he wished to introduce Dr. 
Dennis Madson, newly appointed Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs 

The Board then turned to the reports of the standing 
committees. Chairman Healey noted that all of the Trustees had 
been present at the just completed meeting of the Ececutive Com- 
mittee; therefore he would not repeat President Knapp 's report on 
the status of Executive Compensation. The only action items to be 
dealt with were those related to the composition of the Chancel- 
lors' Search Committees. Without discussion it was moved, 
seconded and 



I 



VOTED : 

and further 
VOTED: 



To authorize a Search Committee for the Chancellor, 
UM/Boston, as outlined in Doc T78-116 as amended. 



To authorize a Search Committee for the Chancellor 
UM/Amherst, as outlined in Doc. T78-116 as amended 
except that one graduate student will also be in- 
cluded on the committee. 



-4- 



I 



1 



1 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

The meeting then heard the report of the Committee on 
Audits. Trustee Dennis said the Committee had met on September 
14 and had discussed a number of matters. These included an in- 
ternal audit at the Campus Center which had revealed a cash short- 
age of $15,000. The funds had been recouped from the bonding com' 
pany and the matter was now being investigated by the Franklin- 
Hamshire District Attorney's Office. It was the Committee's 
opinion that the administration had handled the matter in the pro- 
per fashion. 

The current Hospital audit engagement had been discus- 
sed. Several problems had arisen and these had been solved, and 
| it now seemed apparent that the audit would be completed on time 
and that the cost of the audit would not exceed the original esti- 
mate. 

Chairman Dennis said that the matter of the appointment: 
of a Director of Auditing was yet to be resolved. The search hac 
now been going on for some eighteen months and filling this posi- 
tion was a matter of real concern. The crux of the problem seemec 
to be the salary being offered. Trustee Dennis said that he had 
told Mr. Hester that this position should be filled even if it 
meant appointing someone with less experience who would accept thi. 
salary offered. 

Another problem, Trustee Dennis continued, was that 
there were various trust funds and cost centers within the Univer- 
sity and these operated under a variety of accounting procedures 
and policies. This was an area where the need for uniform poli- 
cies and procedures should be considered. 

Trustee Kassler, speaking of the problem of finding a 
Director of Audits, asked what salary was being offered. Mr. 
Hester said the salary range being offered ranged from the high 
twenties to the low thirties. Actually, two searches had been 
conducted. At the conclusion of the first search, all finalists 
had found more attractive positions. During the second search, 
three finalists had been offered a salary of $32,000 and had askec 
for $48,000. 



The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Faculty and Educational Policy. Trustee Troy said the Committee 
met on September 20 and the first item dealt with the proposed 
Establishment of a Five-College Department of Dance — UM/Amherst 
(Doc. T78-119) . For some years there had been cooperation among 
the Five Colleges in this activity, and the aim of the proposal 
was to make the fullest use of the several complementary talents 
within the five institutions. If the Department received approval, 
the present Five College Dance Council would be discontinued. 



• 



Without discussion, it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the establishment of a Five College 

Department of Dance at the University of Massachu- 
setts at Amherst, as contained in Trustee 



-5- 



Board 
10/4/78 

Report of 
Committee on 
Audits 



Report of 
Committee on 
Faculty and 
Educational 
Policy 

UM/Amherst — 
Establishment 
of a Five Col- 
lege Department 
of Dance (Doc. 
T78-119) 



loard 
10/4/78 



UM/Amherst- 
Report on 
School of 
Education 



UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence 
in Award of 
Tenure 
(Doc. T78- 
089) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Document T78-119. Upon such approval the 
existing Five-College Dance Council shall be 
discontinued. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee then heard a report on 
the School of Education, UM/Amherst, from Dean Fantini. The Dean 
had reviewed the radical changes brought about in the School in 
1968 when the previous Dean took over and he described both the 
gains and the problems that this departure had brought about. 

On the positive side the School became genuinely in- 
novative and creative and had attracted interesting students and 
faculty. On the negative side the School had been loosely organ- 
ized with weak managerial oversight, particularly in the fiscal 
area, and it was perceived as so flexible in the area of academic 
standards as to have compromised them. 

On taking over, Dean Fantini saw his job as being that 
of maintaining the vitality and the creative spirit of the School 
and, at the same time, tightening the managerial and organiza- 
tional structures and restoring full confidence within the Univer- 
sity on the matter of academic standards. The dean said the 
critical evaluations of the School made both by a campus committee 
and by a distinguished external committee had been a great help 
to him in his efforts. 

The School had now clarified its mission, particularly 
in regard to its responsibilities to the Commonwealth. The Schoo 
had maintained its innovative spirit, strengthened its academic 
standards, particularly on the graduate level, and made fiscal 
management rigorous. Also, the National Association of Colleges 
of Teacher Education had recently evaluated the School and had 
accredited the School for a period of seven years. All in all, 
the Committee was reassured by Dean Fantini' s report as to the 
present state of the School and the direction it was taking at 
both the undergraduate and graduate levels. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee also touched on Self- 
Study Reports from UM/Boston and UM/Amherst. Since the reports 
were not available to the Committee in time to read them, it was 
agreed that the reports would be discussed in detail at a later 
meeting. 



Trustee Troy said the Committee then went into execu- 
tive session to discuss three awards of tenure. At the conclusion 
of the session the Committee agreed to recommend concurrence in 
the awards. Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED: To concur in the award of tenure by the Presi- 
dent to the faculty member at UM/Amherst named 
in Supplement IV to Trustee Document T78-089. 



-6- 



I 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



1 



and further 



VOTED : 



To concur in the award of tenure by the Presi- 
dent to R. Glenn Brown, Professor of Food Science 
and Nurtition at the University of Massachusetts 
at Amherst; and to John Norman Austin, Professor 
of Classics at the University of Massachusetts at 
Amherst. 



The Board then heard the report of the joint meeting 
on September 27 of the Committees on Student Affairs and Budget 
and Finance. Trustee Crain said the Committees had heard a 
petition from the tenants of the family housing complex at UM/ 
Amherst. The petition concerned the increase in rents and other 
matters relating to the apartments in the complex. The Trustees 
listened very carefully to the presentation, and while agreeing 
with the tenants on certain issues, were not persuaded to recom- 
mend reconsideration of the rent increase approved for the 1978- 
79 academic year. 

However, consensus was reached on several points. 
First, the campus would work closely with the tenants to ensure 
that increases in future years could be carefully scrutinized as 
early in the budgeting process as possible and would be discussed 
with the tenants as early as possible. The campus will try to re- 
commend fees no later than March of each year. The proposed step 
increases for future years would be re-evaluated. 



The tenants, Trustee Crain continued, raised a number 
of points regarding poor maintenance. It was agreed that main- 
tenance, repair plans and services would be established which would 
reflect the tenants' concerns. The administration would continue 
to push for capital outlay funds so that those presently in resi- 
dence would not have to bear the cost of deferred maintenance. 



As the $19.00 increase imposed for this year was needed 
to cover actual costs and to improve conditions, the tenants wouIgI 
be required to pay the rent as due. Further, the University woul<jl 
increase its efforts to ensure timely payment of rent for all itsj 
housing so that future increases would not be needed to cover the 
cost of bad debts. Trustee Crain said the Committees were most 
appreciative to the tenants for concurring with this action. Fi- 
nally, the University would re-examine the level of graduate sti- 
pends. 

The Board then heard the report of the joint meeting 
of the Committees on Budget and Finance and Buildings and Grounds. 
Trustee Crain said the purpose of the meeting was to consider the 
proposed FY 1980 Capital Outlay Budget Request (Doc. T78-121) . 
After a detailed discussion it was agreed to recommend the reques : 
to the Board. 



-7- 



Board 
10/4/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Concurrence in 
the Award of 
Tenure to R. 
Glenn Brown 
and John 
Norman Austin 
(Doc T78-120) 

Report of Joint 
Meeting of 
Committees on 
SA and B&F 

UM/Amherst — 
Petition of 
Tenants of 
Family Housing 



Report of 
Joint Meeting 
of Committees 
on B&F and B&G 

FY 1980 Capital 
Outlay Budget 
Request (Doc. 
T78-121) 



Board 
10/4/78 



Expression 
of Thanks to 
William 
Meehan 

Report of 
Delegate to 
Board of 
Higher Edu- 
cation 



Presentation 
by Represen- 
tative of 
Faculty 
Union 

Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the FY 1980 Capital Outlay Budget 
Requests and Submissions as set forth in 
Trustee Document T78-121. 

Trustee Crain said that the Committee had taken note 
of the excellent transition accomplished by Mr. Meehan and his 
staff in moving the Central Administrative Offices to the new 
quarters at 250 Stuart Street. The Trustees had agreed that this 
had been an extraordinary job. Chairman Healey said that the 
Board might wish to formally extend its thanks to Mr. Meehan who 
had worked most effectively for the University over the years. 
Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To extend to William Meehan the appreciation of 
the Board of Trustees for his many services to 
the University. 

The meeting then heard the report of the Delegate to 
the Board of Higher Education. Trustee Sawtelle said that the 
BHE met on September 15. Chancellor McGuire, attending his first 
meeting as Chancellor, outlined his plans for the future and in- 
dicated that his major aim was to have the Board fulfill its 
statutory role, that is, to become the true coordinating instru- 
ment for pubic higher education in the Commonwealth. 

Chairman Healey said this concluded the regular busi- 
ness of the meeting. He then called for the presentation by the 
representative of the faculty union. Professor Swartz, UM/Boston^ 
then read a statement, which statement is appended to these minu- 
tes (see Addendum II) . 

Chairman Healey recessed the meeting at 2:45 p.m. at 
the conclusion of Professor Swartz 's statement. 

Chairman Healey reconvened the meeting at 2:50 p.m. 
He then called for a motion to enter executive session in order 
to discuss collective bargaining matters. The Board, he said, 
would reconvene in open session. Without discussion it was moved 
seconded and on roll call 



I 



I 



VOTED 



To enter executive session. 



Trustees Breyer, Crain, Dennis, Dion, Kassler, Krumsiek, 
Marks, McNeil, McNulty, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Robertson, Sawtelle and 
Troy voted for the motion as did Chairman Healey and President 
Knapp and Representatives Parks, Owens and Barrus. Trustees Anrig, 
Burack, Fielding, Morgenthau and Shearer were absent. 

At 4:30 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To end the executive session. 



-8- 



I 



1 



I 



\ 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Chairman Healey then recognized Mr. Creelman, a student 
from UM/Boston, who wished to speak on the matter of collective 
j bargaining. Mr. Creelman said that the students at Boston 
were solidly behind the faculty in the matter of the contract. In 
evidence of this he presented petitions containing over 1,600 sig 
natures and noted that the majority of students were boycotting 
classes for two days. 

Chairman Healey thanked Mr. Creelman for his presen- 
tation. He then recognized Trustee Krumsiek who made the follow- 
ing statement: 

"I would like to address on behalf of the Board the 
Board's position, as I understand it to be, concerning the status 
of the Faculty Collective Bargaining negotiations. The Board, in 
its Executive Session, considered the remarks made by the repre- 
sentative of the Faculty Union and also received its periodic up- 
i date with respect to status of the bargaining efforts since the 
Board last convened in formal session. The Board is fully ap- 
prised of the sensitivity of the issues which remain outstanding 
and which include the distribution of merit money and who will 
control that distribution, the issue of part-time faculty, the 
issue of personnel policies regarding librarians, the issue of re- 
trenchment policies and the retroactivity of any collective bar- 
gaining agreement. These, when coupled with the other issues 
which have already been agreed to by our representatives and those 
of the union in the many months of negotiations that have gone on 
before, will represent, when formalized, a document that will have 
significant and long-range impact for the University as an insti- 
tution. We are appreciative of the need for a prompt resolution 
of the bargaining process. We understand, and the administration 
is committed to giving this item its uppermost priority. We think 
that with mediation an agreement can be expeditiously achieved. 

"With respect to mediation, we proposed that to the 
union as early as August and recently, within the last week or two, 
the faculty representatives have indicated a firm desire to pur- 
sue that as an alternative to face-to-face negotiations. We think 
that's an appropriate negotiating vehicle. We understand today 
that there have been informal discussions between our negotiator 
and that of the faculty which have concluded with agreement upon 
a listing of four individuals, each of whom would be acceptable to 
both sides, to serve in that most important and significant role. 
We think that now it's a question of availability and willingness 
to serve. We are hopeful that within the next 24 hours we will 
have information indicative to us as to who that individual might 
be and whether he will be available to commence the mediation pro- 
cess within the week. 

"We applaud the efforts of mediation. We are willing 



-9- 



Board 
10/4/78 



Board 
10/4/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

to proceed with a sincere and firm desire to reach an agreement 
at the earliest possible moment. We think that it is important 
for everyone to know that the Board stands united behind its ad- 
ministrative bargaining team. The principles of the management 
of the university are those reserved to the Board and those that 
will be reserved with the culmination of the bargaining effort. 
We can get a contract tomorrow if we are willing to give every- 
thing that the union now seeks. That is a price that we are not 
prepared to pay. We think that the mutual mediation effort will 
produce an agreement, we are optimistic as we enter this stage of 
the negotiations, and we would hope that the faculty union would 
approach it in the spirit of good faith and with a sincere and 
equal effort to obtain an agreement; and if that is the case, 
then we think that the mediation effort, and a successful media- 
tion effort, will soon be obtained." 

There was no further business to come before the 
Board and the meeting adjourned at 4:40 p.m. 



I 




Dorothy Eiche 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-10- 



I 



I 



ADDENDUM NO. 2 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT SWARTZ TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
MEETING, HOWARD JOHNSON'S HOTEL, BOSTON 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 10/4/78 

I am Robert Swartz of the Fhilosphy Department at UMass/Boston. I am 
here on behalf of both the Faculty Staff Union at UMass/Boston and the 
Massachusetts Society of Professors at UMass/Amherst. 

At the outset, let me make it clear that I did not request this 
opportunity to speak to the Board in order to' bargain or discuss the 
substantive issues that lie unresolved in our contract dispute. Rather, I 
am here to convey to the Board the deep concern that the union and the 
faculty it represents have about the course our contract dispute has taken. 
As you know,^ both campuses are in a state of turmoil over this dispute. 
Faculty and librarians who have a basic desire to return to a normally 
functioning university in which they can instruct students and conduct 
their research in a collegial atmosphere are today picketing or demonstrating. 
The atmosphere is a tense one which can easily escalate. We are all con- 
cerned that it not escalate, and we are deeply troubled by what we view 
as a situation in which the policy issues that are unresolved could be 
resolved in a way that it consistent with and in fact will enhance the 
image of this university as a high-quality institution dedicated to 
excellence. Why should such a potentially destructive course be allowed 
to continue and escalate under these circumstances? 

Our belief that a fair settlement could be achieved was buoyed this 
past week when informal talks between representatives of the highest 
administrative levels of the university and of the union yielded a set 
of concepts which represented movement from both the administration's 
position and the union's, We were informed by authoritative and reliable 
sources that the university leadership found these concepts very appealing 



I 



I 



I 



I 



-2- 

and the basis for a settlement to be reached through mediation or as a result 
of resumed negotiations; after careful study and debate, both the Boston 
and Amherst boards felt exactly the same way. 

So here was a very positive move in the direction of a settlement that 
could have brought us a signed contract by today. 

However, while the union leadership was waiting for a response from 
the administration that would have brought both sides back to the table 
on Monday, we heard informally that at a long session of the management 
strategy team on Saturday that this package and plan was not accepted. 
The official contact was not made and once again what appeared to be 
promise of a fair settlement yielded nothing. 

We do not know what went wrong in this chain of events. We were not 
privy to the administration's strategy session of Saturday. But specu- 
lation is inevitable and has been intense. Views that are being offered 
range from the idea that the Board, or a sizeable faction on the Board, 
simply does not want a contract settlement at this time and wants militant 
action by the faculty to occur, to the idea that the deans and lower-level 
administrators on the administration's team are in a position in which they 
can set policy for the university. 

Such speculation, in our minds, is fruitless and can serve only to 
further tarnish the image of this university. We do not wish to engage in 
it; but we do want the Board to know that it is taking place. What is clear 
to us, however, is that there does seem to be some problem about decision- 
making and policy-setting at this university. We have little hope that if 
this problem is not dealt with the Board immediately we will malte any 
substantial progress in our dispute. This is extremely serious. 



I 



I 



J 



1 



I 



-3- 

What we would like to request of the Board is for it to take a more 
active role in order to bring this dispute to resolution. We would like 
to ask members of the Board to read through the exchanges on the eight 
disputed issues and to familiarize themselves with the position that was 
discussed over this past weekend. Please do not take our word on any of 
these matters. We invite you to seek confirmation from people not 
affiliated with the Union. Further, we would like to v4$r&st that the 
tone, substance, and direction of future negotiations be enhanced by the 
presence of one or two members of the Board's Labor Relations 'Committee 
on the management bargaining team, thereby insuring the effectuation of 
Board policy at the negotiations level. Any questions that may exist 
about blurred lines of authority and about mid-level managers and staff 
setting policy on behalf of the Trustees can be rectified in this fashion. 
Further, we are confident that this will restore to the process the 
dignity that can make it an exemplary model of bargaining in a high-quality 
higher education institution. But most important, we are confident that 
an affirmation of the leadership of the Board of Trustees and its chief 
executive officer, the President, at this point in the dispute can bring 
us to an amicable, mutually-acceptable settlement which will serve as the 
basis for a restoration of mutual confidence and the possibility of the 
faculty and the administration moving forward together in the attempt to 
maintain the academic quality and integrity of the University of Massa- 
chusetts. 



I 



' 



/ 




ADDENDUM NO. 1 T^c**^. '/ J^ 

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

AMHERST • BOSTON • WORCESTER 



CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY 

OF MASSACHUSETTS AT WORCESTER 

DEAN OF THE MEDICAL SCHOOL 

55 lake avenue north September 18, 1978 

WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS 01605 



UMMC CHANCELLOR'S COMMENTS 
Board of Trustees Meeting (9-14-78) 



1. The Effect of the "Pay-Back" Provision on Admissions to the 
Medi cal School 

Although responses to our questionnaires are still drifting in, 
precluding accurate final results at this moment, there is sufficient 
evidence to conclude that the imposition of this new requirement had 
no measurable effect on our ability to attract candidates and ultimately 
to register students of the highest quality. There were almost 10% 
fewer applicants to our medical school, but this is consistent with 
national trends. Of the applicants who withdrew, less than 10% indi- 
cated that the pay-back influenced their decision to withdraw their 
application. We invited approximately 150 students to join our class 
before we filled the 100 places ; in previous years , the number had been 
between 160 and 170. The admissions credentials of our entering students 
are as impressive this year as in previous years. 

2. Affirmative Action Plan 

The completed plan has today been delivered to the President's Office. 
The product of two years of hard labor by our exceptional Affirmative 
Action Officer, Margaret Booker, the completed plan owes its existence 
to the efforts of many people on the Campus and off. We believe that once 
the Board reviews and approves the plan, it will receive rapid approval 
by HEW; we have been working carefully with HEW staff as the plan has 
developed and, in the course of the past two years, have improved our 
processes and our statistics to the extent that we expect a good reception 
of the plan by external agencies . 

3. Accreditation and Self-Study 

The accrediting team from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education 
will be visiting Worcester for four days in late October for the purpose 
of determining the School's accreditation. In recent years, the accredi- 
ting agency has developed a detailed self -study project, requiring the 
production of a report prior to the visit of the accrediting team. This 



p 



I 



I 



I 



President Knapp 

Chancellor's Comments on Board Meeting of 9-14-78 

Page 2 



process has been completed, involved broad participation of faculty, 
students and administrators, and was admirably managed by Dr. Karl 
Hiftleman. Attached is a brief commentary on the process and report for 
jour information by Dr. Hittleman. We shall be sending copies of our 
self-study report as soon as they are available. This project came along 
at just the right time to put us in a good position to enter effectively 
into the detailed institutional planning which is to occur this year. 

4. Some Personnel Notes 

Edgar Smith, our Provost, has returned from his year-long sojourn 
in Washington as one of six Johnson Fellows in health policy. He has 
returned having earned widespread respect and admiration in the nation's 
capital and has received the rather extraordinary honor of being asked 
to serve now on the distinguished panel to choose the Johnson Fellows 
over the next three years. 

Phil Caper, a charter member of the congress ionally -mandated National 
Council on Health Planning and Development, a prestigious group ad- 
vising Secretary Calif ano, has been asked to chair one of the Council's 
three major subcommittees, i.e. the Subcommittee of Technology Assess- 
ment and Productivity. Between Edgar and Phil, we are well-connected in 
Washington. 

Bob Cathey , our Director of Fiscal Affairs, has joined a select 
group of Fellows of the Hospital Financial Management Association. This 
Association, formed in 1946 for educational purposes, has 15,000 members 
in North America, but only around 400 have successfully passed the 
rigorous eight-hour examination required to earn Fellowship. In this 
year's exam, only two of eleven people from Massachusetts passed. Two 
people on our staff are Fellows, another evidence that our growing con- 
fidence in our fiscal management has a sound basis. 

Bill Butcher , former Acting Dean of the Medical School and currently 
Associate Dean for Scientific Affairs and Chairman of Biochemistry, has 
reversed a decision to leave the University. Recently listed among the 
50 authors most frequently cited in the biomedical literature , his de- 
cision to stay is an enormous lift to our faculty and staff, 

Donald Tipper , another of our superlative basic science chairmen, 
having built the Department of Microbiology has announced his intention 
to step down from the Chair. This of course is a loss because his achieve- 
ments have been great, but it is a logical time for Dr. Tipper to do 
this, in order that he can preserve his distinguished investigative and 
teaching career. The sociology of a medical school is different from the 
rest of the University in a number of ways, but perhaps the most impor- 
tant difference lies in the tremendous importance of the departmental 

chairpersons. They are the most important group to the health of a modern 
school and center . I shall be happy to develop this point at another time. 



I 



President Knapp 

Chancellor's Comments on Board Meeting of 9-14-78 

Page 3 



Replacing Dr. Tipper will be difficult and the Board will need at that 
time to deal with the fact that our current salaries have fallen from 
the 80th percentile to below the 20th for departmental chairpersons. 



RJB/blb 
Enclosures 



I 



Respectfully submitted, 

•i 

' i .- — > / /) 

Roger p. Bulger, M.D. J 
Chancellor/Dean ' 



\ 






I 



( 



ATTENDANCE 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 



November 1, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 

Faculty Conference Room 

University of Massachusetts/Worcester 



Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Knapp ; 
trustees Burack, Crain, Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, McNeil, McNulty, 
Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Popko , Robertson, Romer , Sawtelle, Shearer, 
Troy and Tyson. Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Mr. Parks 
jrepresenting Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Owens, representing Trustee Okin 



Mr. Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop; Ms 
Secretary; Mr. Miller recorder 



Eichel, Assistant 



Trustees Absent : Trustees Breyer, Dennis and Fielding 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Vice President for Academic 
Affairs; Mr. DeNyse, Acting Vice President for Management; Mr. 
Searson, General Counsel 

JM/ Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Beatty, Acting Vice Chancellor 



Eor Administration and Finance; Mr. Littlefield, Director of Plan- 
ning ; Professor Fletcher, Faculty Representative 

JM/Boston : . Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Baxter, Vice Chancellor 
tor Administration and Finance; Mr. Tubbs, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs 



/Worcester : Dr. Caper, Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs; Dr, 
Goodman, Deputy Dean; Professor Smith, Faculty Representative 

The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. Chairman 
lealey asked if there were any corrections or additions to the 
minutes of the prior meeting. There were none and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the October 4, 1978 
meeting of the Board of Trustees. 

Chairman Healey then introduced Herbert Tyson, newly 
elected student Trustee from Amherst, after which he asked the 
^resident for his comments. 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



New Student 
Trustee 



President Knapp said a number of events had occurred in President s 
:he last ten days. All who attended seemed to have enjoyed the Comments 
October 29 inauguration, for which he thanked the Trustees. The 
collective bargaining agreement between the Board and the faculty 
and librarians of the Amherst and Boston campuses had been 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

initialed by the negotiators and would soon be submitted to the 
Dargaining unit for ratification. President Knapp proffered his 
gratitude to the University's negotiating team for their efforts. 

President Knapp then said that Mr. Calif ano, Secretary 
of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, had visited 
the Medical Center over the weekend and asked Dr. Caper to comment 
3n this visit. 

Dr. Caper said that at the recent meeting of the Associ- 
ation of American Colleges, Mr. Calif ano had made a major policy 
statement regarding health manpower. In the statement, Mr. 
Califano had mentioned the projected oversupply of physicians. If 
:he projections were correct, in the year 1990 the number of 
jracticing physicians will have doubled. The Secretary had also 
mentioned geographic maldistribution of health professionals and 
:he need for physicians to be more responsive to the demographic, 
social and economic implications of health care. 



Secretary Califano had also made a number of recommenda- 
:ions which presumably would be included in health manpower pro- 
>osals the administration would make to Congress. The recommenda- 
tions included aid for the training of primary care physicians and 
-o help solve maldistribution problems; support for more residencies 
:.n primary care; review of reimbursement formulas so as not to dis-- 
:ourage ambulatory care; support for departments of family medicine 
:he recruitment of more students from underserved areas; aid for 
:he development of clinical rotations in geriatric and palliative 
:are; the need for courses in medical schools in the economics and 
ethics of health care; lastly, the need for the education of nurse 
>ractitioners and other allied health professionals. 

Dr. Caper said that since the Medical Center had programs 
:.n all the areas mentioned by Mr. Califano, he and the Chancellor 
nad considered inviting him to visit the campus. This proved to be 
unnecessary, as Senator D'Amico of Worcester had already done so. 

Secretary Califano had been given a tour of the facility 
and a briefing on the School's programs. At the conclusion of his 
^isit he made a number of laudatory comments and had said that what 
:he Medical Center was doing was "the wave of the future" and repre 
sented that which American medical education needed to do. 

President Knapp then said that two people were leaving 
he University and that the record should show his appreciation for 
:heir contributions to the University. Larry Hester, for several 
years Associate Vice President for Business Services and more re- 
cently Acting Vice President for Management, had done yeoman servide 

or the University over the years and he would be missed. Chancel- 
lor Bulger's leaving would be a blow to the University; he too 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

would be missed. He had moved the Medical Center through a very 
critical period. President Knapp noted that a reception would be 
held for Dr. Bulger on November 10 and he urged the Trustees to 
attend. 

In the matter of affirmative action, President Knapp con- 
jtinued, the Trustees had received reports from the three campuses, 
ilhe reports showed that the University had a structure and proces- 
jses in place and that some progress had been made with respect to 
affirmative action. However, there were still many things left to 
be done. Active affirmative action would have to take place, par- 
ticularly when recruiting faculty and upper administrative echelons 
|ln this area, the "proof of the pudding" was what the results were 
not in demonstrating how well the institution followed established 
procedures . 

Affirmative action had to be thought of as a normal part 
of the personnel process and as an established way of operating. 
The President concluded by saying that in his view this was not 
Dnly a legal requirement, it was a moral commitment, and he would 
intervene wherever possible to carry out this commitment. 

Trustee McNeil, speaking for the record, said that she 
lad carefully reviewed the material on affirmative action and her 
response to this was that while the University had the procedures , 
jthese had not produced the kind of results that one could expect a: 
this time. On examining the hiring practices of the last year, it 
did not seem that the commitment to affirmative action was followed 
through. 

Trustee McNeil said it was her view that it was time for 
the Board to make a statement that would let people know where the 
Trustees stood on affirmative action. While she was aware of the 
problems of implementing affirmative action and of the fact that 
the pools of applicants were small, she did not feel that the Uni- 
versity, on the whole, had been as aggressive in recruitment and 
in hiring as it could have been. 

Chairman Healey suggested that a policy statement be 
drafted for Board consideration. Trustee Kassler said it was his 
understanding that affirmative action was a requirement of the law 
:herefore any statement from the Board should not be a declaration 
:hat the Trustees were in favor of affirmative action. Chairman 
lealey said he agreed. His suggestion was that the statement go 
Deyond a simple declaration and, for example, make provision for 
regular reports to the Board. Whatever the statement was to be, it 
would have to be carefully thought out. Trustee Kassler suggested 
:hat the statement be in the nature of a directive, rather than of 
a policy statement. Further, the directive should be addressed to 
all those in the University who had hiring responsibilities. This 
would be a way of informing people that the Board was more 
Interested in results than in supporting a concept. 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



-3- 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Chancellor' s 
Comments 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee McNeil said that it was her hope that whatever 
action the Board took would result in a change in color throughout 
the University. In the matter of hiring women, Trustee McNeil con- 
tinued, it was not possible to talk about a small pool of appli- 
cants. Despite this, women were under-represented at all levels in 
the University. Also, in reading the status reports, one got the 
impression that the recruiters did not approach their task with th£ 
intent of change. 

Trustee Crain said that he thought that one of the prob- 
lems in the search processes was that the University tried to find 
the most qualifed person. However, it should be noted that "most 
qualified," was often the result of opportunity and experience. 
If affirmative action goals were to be achieved, a change would 
lave to occur and there would have to be a commitment to the selec- 
tion of qualified people who clearly have the potential to dis- 
charge the duties of the post in question, but who might not be the 
'most qualified." 



Mr. Parks said that on a number of occasions, when there 
jas an opening at the University, he had urged potential candidate^ 
to apply, but that a frequent response was that there was no point! 
Ln applying because the word was out that the University would not ; 
lire blacks. This was now happening with the Chancellor's searche$. 
D eople would ask for assurance that the Board would seriously con- 
sider blacks for the positions. Mr. Parks said that the University 
tfould have to hire someone in a position of administrative authority 
Ln order to erase this impression. 

As Trustee Crain had said, Mr. Parks continued, in any 
search process there was a determination as to which candidates had 
the basic qualities and qualifications. The process then became a 
aatter of judgement and, at times, there were arbitrary judgements: 
lr. Parks said it was his feeling that the University was in a posi- 
:ion where it would have to do something fairly overt in terms of 
liring minorities and women in certain positions. 

Chairman Healey said that his thought was that whatever 
:he proposed document was called, the Board would have to draft 
something that would have some power of implementation, circulate 
:his to the campuses, and indicate that this was what the Board 
vanted. He suggested that the document be available prior to the 
December meeting. 



President Knapp then asked the Chancellors for their com- 



ments 



Chancellor Bromery said that Amherst had just celebrated 
iomecoming. One of the highlights was the meeting of more than . 
100 members of the Second Century Club. This was a growing Associ- 
ation of alumni which made direct financial contributions to the 



-4- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

University and was now broadening its interest in the affairs of 
the University. In the past six years alumni giving had increased 
from about $40,000 to over $400,000 and the Second Century Club 
was the backbone of this effort. 

On November 4, Chancellor Bromery continued, the campus 
was having a Parents' Night. Parents of students were invited to 
the campus for an evening and this too was becoming an increasingly 
popular event. 

Speaking on a negative note, Chancellor Bromery said the 
campus, as was the nation, was being plagued by vandalism. The 
campus was making a maximum effort to curb this. The vandalism was 
particularly severe over the Homecoming weekend. One revealing 
jthing was that most of those who had to be constrained were non- 
University people. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that an accreditation team 
had spent three days on campus in mid-October. The team had in- 



UM/Boston — 



Chancellor's 

terviewed faculty, students and administrators. The team, in its Comments 
preliminary report, had outlined both strengths and problems that 
affected the campus. 

One of the more interesting things that the team had 
mentioned was that the campus did not have a high enough opinion 
of itself. They found this at all levels. There was a tendency 
to downgrade accomplishments and the students had a low opinion of 
themselves. The team's reaction was just the opposite. They found 
many good things at the University. They felt that the campus 
should be improved. The visitors were very supportive of the work 
of the College of Public and Community Service. When the team's 
final report was received, it would be sent to the Trustees. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that the campus was making 

■ 

final preparations for the American Council on Education workshop 
for Women Administrators. Over 200 women were expected from many 
Darts of New England. 

Chairman Healey then said that on completion of the for- 
nal agenda the Board would go into executive session to discuss 
natters relating to collective bargaining. The Board would not re 
convene in open session. 

The Board then heard the Reports of Standing Committees. 



Chairman Healey said that the Executive Committee had met 
and had unanimously voted to recommend the appointment of H. 
Maurice Goodman as Acting Chancellor at UM/Worcester . There was 
10 discussion and it was moved, seconded and 



-5- 



Report of 
Executive 
Committee 



BOARD 
11/1/78 

UM/ Worcester — 
Appointment 
of Dr. Goodman 
as Acting 
Chancellor 



UM/Worcester — 

Personnel 

Action 

(Doc. T78-123) 



VOTED: 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Upon the recommendation of the President, 
to appoint H. Maurice Goodman as Acting 
Chancellor of the University of Massachu- 
setts at Worcester and Acting Dean of the 
Medical School at UM/Worcester effective 
November 15, 1978. 



and further 



VOTED 



To approve the Personnel Action as set forth 
in Doc. T78-123. 



UM/Worcester — 

Personnel 

Action 

(Doc. T78-106) 

Honorary 
Degrees 



Chairman Healey said the Executive Committee was also 
recommending a personnel action with respect to Mr. Bice and his 
appointment as Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance and 
hospital Director at Worcester. 

There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as set forth in 
Trustee Document T78-106. 

In the matter of Honorary Degrees — UM/ Amherst and UM/ 
Boston, Chairman Healey said that the Executive Committee had 
agreed to recommend that Chancellor Bromery be asked to proceed 
tfith the necessary arrangements in the case of one individual, 
further, a tentative list of other candidates had been agreed upon 
and this list would be discussed at the December meeting. The rec 
Dmmendations from Boston would also be discussed at that meeting. 

There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 



Report of the 
Committee on 
Budget and 
Finance 

Report of 

Investment 

Counsel 



VOTED : 



At the December meeting of the Board of 
Trustees to consider as candidates for 
honorary degrees those persons agreed 
upon in executive session of the Execu- 
tive Committee on this date. 



and further 



VOTED 



To postpone consideration on nominees from 
the Boston Campus for honorary degrees, 
until the December meeting of the Board 
of Trustees. 



The Board then heard the report of the Committee on Bud- 
get and Finance. Trustee Crain said the Committee had heard a re- 
port from the Investment Counsel. As of October 30, the market 
/alue of the University's portfolio was $1,836,000, an increase of 
7.5 percent over January 1, 1978. 



-6- 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Crain said that in discussing the report, the 
Trustees talked about the desirability of increasing the coordina4 
tion of existing University resources dedicated to public relations, 
lobbying, and development in order to improve the image of the Uni- 
versity in the eyes of its constituents ; thereby attracting more 
development donations. In the course of the discussion, great 
emphasis was placed on the importance of staff presently engaged 
in development having tracking systems for their activities and 
therefore accountability. 

The second item, Trustee Crain continued, related to a 
delegation of authority which he had discussed with Chairman 
Healey and which University Counsel had indicated was acceptable. 
The proposal was to delegate to the Treasurer day-by-day responsi+ 
bility for asset collection and monitoring of the University's in- 
vestments. This would require a change in the By-laws and the 
Trustees would receive the requisite 30 day notice prior to acting 
on the matter. Chairman Healey said he thought this was a very 
good suggestion. 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



I 



I 



Trustee Crain said the Committee had earlier in the day 
met in order to ratify a vote taken by telephone on September 11, 
having to do with the purchase of government bonds. 

Trustee Crain said that some good news had been received 
from the Bureau of Building Construction. The Bureau would be 
making an allocation of $275,000 to the Amherst campus for equip- j 
ment, an unanticipated $100,000 for equipment and $200,000 for 
energy conservation measures to Worcester, and $50,000 for an 
elevator for the handicapped at 250 Stuart Street. 

In the matter of executive compensation, Trustee Crain 
continued, President Knapp had indicated that more time would be 
necessary to analyze the data the Trustees had received. The 
sense of the Committee was that the President should be very 
sensitive to the present political climate and the dismay of the 
taxpayers with anything that suggested extravagance. 



The Board then heard the report of the Committee on 
Buildings and Grounds. Trustee Burack said the Committee had 
dealt with a single item, the Bus Maintenance Facility — UM/Amherst 
(Doc. T78-112) . When the Trustees had considered this matter in 
September 1977, the intent had been that the Pioneer Valley Tran- 
sit Authority would build and own the facility and would lease it 
to the University. Under this arrangement-, the Zoning Board of the 
town of Hadley, the site of the proposed facility, would have had 
to grant a zoning variance. This the Board refused to do. Be- : 
cause the land in question was owned by the University, if the 
University assumed the role of builder /owner /lessor , no variance 
would be needed. The vote now before the Board would allow this 
to happen. 



-7- 



Proposed By-law 
Change for 
Delegation of 
Authority on 
Investments to 
Treasurer 



Ratification 
of Vote on 
Purchase of 
Securities 

Report on 
Capital Out- 
lay 



Report on 
Executive 
Compensation 



Report of the 
Committee on 
Buildings and 
Grounds 

UM/Amherst — 
Bus Mainte- 
nance 

Facility (Doc. 
T78-112) 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Burack said that the Trustees should understand 
that while the Committee was recommending the action to the Board, 
there were certain very basic questions raised by members of the 
Committee. As Trustee Kassler had pointed out, with the Univer- 
sity as the landlord and the PVTA as the tenant, the ultimate 
financial responsibility was of great concern. The documentation 
given to the Committee included a contract which the Trustees had 
been assured by counsel contained every safeguard and protection 
against any foreseeable contingency. However, there were certain 
long-term questions that perhaps could not be answered. 

Trustee Burack said that the funds for the building 
would come mainly from the federal and state governments. However 
the questions raised at the Committee meeting had mainly to do 
with the operation of the facility. 

Trustee Kassler said that his major concern was that if 
the PVTA were to terminate its lease for whatever reason, the 
University as owner of the building would have to repay the fed- 
eral and state monies. Furthermore, there was a question as to 
the uncertainty of on-going expenses and increases in those ex- 
penses. While it would be fair to say that the documentation pre- 
pared by the Amherst staff addressed most of the issues, there 
remained areas of legal and financial concern. 

Trustee Kassler said that unless there was need for this 
action on a forthwith basis, he would like to suggest an amend- 
ment to the proposed vote which would authorize the Chancellor in 
consultation with the President to act subject to further consid- 
eration and approval by the Committees on Budget and Finance and 
Buildings and Grounds. He noted that this had happened in the 
past. Because of the changed role of the University it would be 
useful if counsel could explain to the two Committees what finan- 
cial risks the Trustees would be subject to if the proposal was 
approved. 

Trustee Burack said that Trustee Romer had said that 
construction of the facility was not only in keeping with, but 
also reflected the wishes of, the town of Amherst. Trustee 
Romer said that the Selectmen had followed the process of develop- 
ing the concept of the facility from the beginning and supported 
its construction. 

Trustee McNeil said she was still not sure why the Uni- 
versity had to build the facility. Trustee Burack said that this 
was entirely because of the problem of the zoning variance. The 
PVTA could not get a variance; the University did not need one. 
At the Committee meeting, she continued, Trustee McNulty had 
raised the question of whether the University would be seen as a 
bad neighbor if it followed the proposed course. The Trustees hac 



-8- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

been assured by staff that the objection to construction of the 
facility in Hadley was not by any means unanimous. Also, other 
towns in the area had been contacted and there were no serious 
objections to the proposal. Trustee Krumsiek said he was relievec 
to hear that the town of Hadley was not opposed to the facility. 
There could be times in the future when the University would need 
the cooperation of the town and, if for that reason only, good 
relationships should be maintained. 

Trustee Krumsiek said he was also concerned that the 
University might be in the position of avoiding a legal impediment 
in order to expedite a project, only to find at a later date that 
by making a fundamental change in the ownership of the facility, 
it had incurred a liability. 

, Chancellor Bromery said it might be helpful if he put 
the matter in perspective. Some five or six years ago the Univern 
sity had decided that it would be in the interest of the Univer- 
sity and of the surrounding towns to develop a mass transit system 
This was the only way to move some 25,000 students in and around 
the campus. By making this decision the University was able to 
get federal financial assistance as well as assistance from the 
town of Amherst to develop the system. 

Chancellor Bromery said it was his belief that there 
would be no political problems with the town of Hadley if the 
j facility were built. The questions raised by the town were not 
questions that indicated that the town would be affected by the 
presence of the facility. 

Speaking to Trustee Kassler's concern, Chancellor 
Bromery said that a contractor had submitted a bid which was with 
in the amount of the federal grant. However, that bid would ex- 
pire on November 2 , and if the contract were not signed on that 
day, the University would have to re-bid the contract, and there 
was little chance that any new bid would be within the amount of 
the grant . 

Chancellor Bromery concluded by noting that there was 
general satisfaction with the proposed facility and the transit 
system and that he felt the proposed arrangement with the Univer- 
sity as builder and owner was preferable to the previous arrange- 
ment. 

Trustee Kassler said it was easy to assume that being 
a landlord was better than being a tenant. However, he wished to 
know what the financial dimensions of being a landlord were. 
Further, there were items in the proposed contract that were un- 
clear. His reason for proposing that the vote be amended was to 
allow time to analyze the contract and come back to the Board with 
the assurance that everything had been checked out. 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



-9- 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Chairman Healey asked if it would be possible to get an 
extension of the bid from the contractor. Mr. Beatty said that 
the contractor had allowed three extensions so far, and that it 
was unlikely he would offer a fourth. Also, if the contract had 
to be re-bid, it would delay the start of construction by several 
months. 

Ms. Owens asked what the actual cost to the University 
of the proposed facility would be. Mr. Littlefield said the 
building would cost $1,500,000. The federal grant was for 
$1,200,000. Provided that the facility continued to be used as 
part of a local mass transit facility, the cost to the University 
would be its share of the local contribution — that is, $15,000 
per year for ten years. If the facility were not used as part of 
the transit system, the University would have to seek a capital 
outlay appropriation of $800,000 in order to repay the federal 
government. In response to Chairman Healey 's question, Mr. 
Littlefield said that PVTA was in very good financial condition. 
They had continuing funding for five years. It could be said that 
the chances of PVTA going under were about the same as those of the 
federal government ceasing to fund mass transit. 

Chairman Healey asked Mr. Searson to comment on some of 
the issues that had been raised. Mr. Searson said that if there 
were no federal grant requirements, the arrangement would be 
somewhat simpler. Then it would only be necessary to negotiate 
with the towns and the state. Also, it was not exactly precise 
to say that the University was to be either a landlord or a tenant 1 . 
The sum result before was that the University would have been the 
landlord and the tenant. 



As had been pointed out, Mr. Searson continued, the only 
possible liability would be if the Legislature were to eliminate 
the PVTA, or the federal government withdrew from the mass transit; 
business. However, since the responsibility as well as the right 
of operating a bus system lay in the hands of the University, con- 
tinuation of the service was an option of the Board. This would 
in effect be a business judgement and was one which had been faced 
under the earlier proposal. 

Chairman Healey said that there were legitimate concerns 
here but what was before the meeting was a strong administrative 
recommendation that the Board should proceed. Mr. Parks said it 
should be noted that if the proposal were postponed, the campus 
would have to ask again for bids and one could assume that the new 
bids could be as much as 25 to 30 percent above the present bid. 
While he understood the concerns expressed, there came a point, 
particularly when dealing with construction, when there had to be 
some confidence in the recommendations of the campus administrator 



■10- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Trustee Burack said the Buildings and Grounds Committee 
did in fact vote to recommend the proposed vote as presented to 
the Board. However, she asked that the record show that questions 
had been raised which represented very legitimate concerns. For 
example, there was no guarantee that either the federal or the 
state government would continue to support mass transit and, as 
Trustee Crain had pointed out, the Board should not do anything 
which would exacerbate the present truculent mood of the tax- 
payers. 

Chairman Healey said his feeling was that the Board was 
dealing with three careful and responsible people — Chancellor 
Bromery, Mr. Beatty and Mr. Littlefield — and they lived with the 
problem on a daily basis. The concerns were understandable; but 
the Board was faced with a deadline and it was his feeling that 
the Trustees should act. Trustee Sawtelle said the bus service 
was vitally necessary for the campus and the communities. There 
was no other way of transportation. To delay action any longer 
would be costly. He therefore urged the Trustees to act. Mr. 
Beatty, in response to Trustee Tyson's question, said that ap- 
proval of the vote would not affect the amount of the student con- 
tribution to the operation of the bus system. 

There was no furhter discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : To authorize the Chancellor of the University 
of Massachusetts at Amherst, in consultation 
with the President of the University and as 
described in Trustee Document T78-112, to 

1. Apply for and accept, jointly with the 
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority, an 
amendment to the federal grant MA-03-0052 
(Urban Mass Transportation Administration 

of the Federal Department of Transportation) 
providing for funding of the construction of 
a bus maintenance facility, to be owned by 
the University, on University owned land on 
the Amherst campus; and 

2. Negotiate and execute an agreement with the 
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority providing 
for twenty-five years of use of the facility 
for local public mass transit services either by 
the University of Massachusetts at Amherst 

or, if the University ceases to operate such 
services, by the Pioneer Valley Transit Authorit) 
provided that such successor use by the Pioneer 
Valley Transit Authority will be subject to 
terms and conditions set by the University. 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



-11- 



BOARD 
11/1/78 



Executive 
Session 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Kassler voted against the motion and asked that 
the record show that his opposition was based on the fact that at 
times all due deliberate speed required an opportunity to care- 
fully examine the financial impact; and in this case, discretion 
would dictate that this impact should have been resolved. Ms. 
Owens abstained. 

There was no report from the delegate to the Board of 
Higher Education. 

Chairman Healey said that there were two other matters 
to announce. Trustee Kassler had agreed to serve as Chairman of 
the Committee on Buildings and Grounds and Trustee Tyson had 
agreed to serve on the Committees on Budget and Finance and Stu- 
dent Affairs. 

The Chairman then called for a motion to enter executive 
session in order to discuss matters relating to collective bargain 
ing. He noted that the Board would not reconvene in open session, 



At 2:55 p.m. 
and on roll call 



without discussion it was moved, seconded 



VOTED 



To enter executive session. 



Trustees Burack, Crain, Kassler, Krumsiek, Marks, 
McNeil, McNulty, 0' Sullivan, Popko , Robertson, Sawtelle, Shearer, 
Troy and Tyson voted for the motion as did Chairman Healey, Presi 
dent Knapp, and Mr. Callahan, Mr. Parks, Ms. Owens and Mr. Barrus 
Trustees Breyer, Dennis, Fielding, and Morgenthau were absent. 

At 3:40 p.m. it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To end the executive session and adjourn the meeting 
subject to the recall of the Chairman. 




Dorothy Eichei 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



■12- 



1 



ATTENDANCE ; 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MINUTES OF RECONVENED MEETING 
OF 
BOARD OF TRUSTEES 

November 27, 1978; 2:00 p.m. 

Room 222, 250 Stuart Street 

Boston, Massachusetts 



Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Knapp; 
Trustees Dennis, Donlan, Kassler, Krumsiek, McNeil, Sawtelle , 
Shearer and Troy; Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Assis- 
tant Secretary Eichel; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Trustees Absent : Trustees Breyer, Burack, Crain, Dukakis, Field- 
ing, Marks, McNulty, Morgenthau, Okin, 0' Sullivan, Popko , Robert- 
son, Romer, Tyson and Winthrop 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Senior Vice President for 
Acadmic Affairs; Mr. DeNyse, Acting Vice President for Management 
Mr. Sear son, General Counsel 

UM/ Amherst : Mr. Allen, Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Af- 
fairs and Provost; Mr. Jones, Dean, School of Engineering 

UM/ Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen 

The meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m. Chairman Report of Ad 

Healey reminded the Trustees that the meeting was an adjourned Hoc Committee 

session of the November 1, 1978, meeting of the Board. He then on Labor Rela- 

called for the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Labor Relations.! tions 



Trustee Krumsiek said the Committee had met in execu- 
tive session earlier in the day and had reviewed in considerable 
detail the content of the proposed collective bargaining agree- 
ment between the University and the Faculty/Staff Union. After 
full discussion the Committee had agreed to recommend that the 
Board approve the agreement. There was no discussion and it was 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the Agreement (T78-130) between the 
Trustees of the University of Massachusetts and 
the Massachusetts Society of Professors/Faculty 
Staff Union/MTA/NEA; provided, however, that no 
wage increases as specified in said Agreement 
shall become effective until the Governor has 
transferred sufficient funds to the University's 
maintenance accounts to meet the costs of salary 
increases provided by said Agreement and, further 
provided, that the President be directed to im- 
plement the terms of said Agreement in accordance 
with law. 



Ratification 
of Faculty/ 
Staff Union 
Contract 
(Doc. T78-130) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Further, to authorize the President of the 
University to sign said Agreement on behalf 
of the Board of Trustees. 

This completed the report of the Committee. 

President Knapp said that the Trustees should know that 
he just received a letter from Chancellor Bromery submitting his 
resignation as Senior Vice President for Collective Bargaining, 
effective immediately upon ratification of the Faculty/Staff con- 
tract by the Board. The President then read from Chancellor 
Bromery 's letter as follows: 

"1 wish to highly commend the excellent and truly 
dedicated efforts of our Chief Negotiator, Gary Wulf , 
members of the University's Management Bargaining Team, 
Vice President Lynton, and the members of the Board of 
Trustees Ad Hoc Committee for Labor Relations. It was 
a real pleasure and an excellent learning experience to 
participate in such fine teamwork. 

"I look forward to a continuing relationship with 
all of these persons over the next several months in my 
full-time capacity as Chancellor of the Amherst campus. 
I also wish to express to you my sincere appreciation for 
your support and confidence during those last three dif- 
ficult months of contract negotiations." 

President Knapp concluded by expressing his own grati- 
tude to those who had participated in the difficult process of 
negotiation. All members of the negotiating team did a first 
rate job and the result was a contract which was a commendable 
one, and in some respects a model for the future. 

Chairman Healey then said that he had just been in- 
formed that the U/Mass Amherst football team had been awarded 
the Lambert Cup. The cup signified that the team was the best 
in the Northeast. 

There was no further business to come before the Board, 
and the November, 1978, meeting was adjourned sine die at 1:15 
p .m. 




Dorothy Eicl^el 

Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trustees 



1 



I 



ATTENDANCE : 



I 



I 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES 
December 6, 1978; 10:30 a.m. 
Memorial Hall 
University of Massachusetts/Amherst 



Trustees and Trustee Staff : Chairman Healey; President Knapp; 
Trustees Burack, Crain, Donlan, Kassler, Marks, McNulty, 
Morgenthau, 0' Sullivan, Popko, Romer, Shearer, Troy and Tyson; 
Mr. Callahan representing Trustee Anrig; Ms. Pinck representing 
Trustee Dukakis; Ms. Owens representing Trustee Okin; Mr. 
Barrus representing Trustee Winthrop; Mr. Brand, Treasurer; Ms. 
Eichel, Assistant Secretary; Mr. Miller, recorder 

Absent Trustees : Trustees Breyer, Dennis, Fielding, Krumsiek, 
McNeil, Robertson and Sawtelle . 

Central Administration : Mr. Lynton, Senior Vice President for 
Academic Affairs; Mr. DeNyse, Vice President for Management; 
Mr. Searson, General Counsel; Mr. Stine, Assistant Vice Presi- 
dent for Management 

UM/Amherst : Chancellor Bromery; Mr. Allen, Vice Chancellor for 
Academic Affairs and Provost; Mr. Beatty, Vice Chancellor for 
Administration and Finance; Mr. Madson, Vice Chancellor for 
Student Affairs; Professor Fletcher, Faculty Representative 

UM/Boston : Chancellor Van Ummersen; Mr. Steamer, Vice Chancellor 
for Academic Affairs and Provost 



UM/Worcester : 
Representative 



Chancellor Goodman; Professor Viles, Faculty 



Guests : Professor Patterson; Chairman Lubin, Ms. Kohke, 
Ms. Divaccari, Mr. Barenberg, representing the Coalition 
Against Out-of-State Tuition Raises 

The meeting was called to order at 10:40 a.m. After 
giving a brief explanation of why the time of the meeting 
had been changed, Chairman Healey asked if there were any 
additions or corrections to the minutes of the prior meeting. 
There were none and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the minutes of the November, 
1978 meeting of the Board of Trustees 
convened on November 1 and reconvened 
on November 27 . 



Approval of 
Minutes of 
Prior Meeting 



Board 
12/6/78 



Appointment of 
Trustee Donlan 
to UM/ Amherst 

Chancellor's 
Search Commit- 
tee 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Appointment of 

Nominating 

Committee 

Presentation 
by Representa- 
tives of Co- 
alition Against 
Out-of-State 
Tuition Raises 



Chairman Healey then welcomed newly appointed Trustee 
Donlan to the Board. He noted that Trustee Donlan had agreed 
to serve on the UM/Amherst Chancellor's Search Committee. 
Chairman Healey asked that the Board approve this action, 
without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To concur in the appointment by 

the Chairman of Trustee Donlan to 
be a member of the UM/Amherst Search 
Committee. 

Chairman Healey said that it was time to appoint 
a Nominating Committee. He asked that any Trustees willing to 
serve so inform the Central Administration. 

The Trustees then heard a presentation by representa- 
tives of the Coalition Against Out-of-State Tuition Raises. 

In the course of their remarks the representatives 
stressed that the proposed increase would force many out- of- 
state students to leave the University and either transfer to 
another institution or abandon career goals. While all out-of- 
state students, except those who were rich, would be adversely 
affected, juniors and seniors and foreign students would be 
particularly hard hit. The juniors and seniors who transferred 
would lose credits, and completion of their studies would be 
delayed. Foreign students who wished to transfer could do so 
only with the permission of the federal government because they 
had been admitted to the United States solely for the purpose 
of studying at the University. Further, they were not permit- 
ted to work and most could not afford to pay a tuition raise. 

The representatives also spoke about the detrimental 
effects the loss of out-of-state students would have on the 
University. These effects could include lessening the occupancy 
rate of the residence halls; serious implications for the ath- 
letic program; and the removal of a desirable element of diver- 
sity from the campus, which element added greatly to the quality 
of education at Amherst. 

The Coalition, it was stated, though it represented 
a broad range of views, was united in making two demands — that 
the Board not implement the tuition raise and that it work in 
favor of the bill proposed by Representative Collins of Amherst 
which would repeal those portions of the budget act that man- 
dated the tuition raise and that changed the residency require- 
ment from one continuous calendar year to eighteen months. Also 
the Board was asked to hold its next meeting on the Amherst 
campus, in a room which would hold a large number of students. 



-2- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Finally, there were several statements made which 
questioned the concern of the Trustees for the welfare of the 
students and the University, the ability of the Board to 
monitor the legislative process, and the willingness of the 
administration and the Board to work with the students in 
matters which directly affected them. There was a call for the 
resignation of those Trustees who did not oppose the increase 
in tuition and the change in the residency requirements. 

In response to the presentation, Chairman Healey 
said he would assume that failure to mention the efforts of the 
Board over the years to build the University was unintentional. 
He said he was getting somewhat tired of criticism of the 
Board, particularly in view of the amount of time the Trustees 
devoted to the University. The Trustees received and read 
masses of material regarding all phases of the operation of the 
University every week. All of the material required Board 
attention; much of it required Committee and Board action. 

In the matter of the Board's ability to monitor the 
legislative process, Chairman Healey said that it was apparent 
that none of the members of the Coalition was aware of the 
amount of work that the legislative arm of the Board, through 
the efforts of Mr. Cass, had done. He urged the students to 
examine the annual reports of Mr. Cass, wherein they could see 
the numerous bills that affected the University that had been 
nipped in the bud. Many of the bills, if enacted, would have 
seriously damaged the intellectual integrity of the University. 

The amendment to the Budget Act which had mandated 
the tuition increase had been inserted in the preamble of the 
Act at the last moment. It was not part of the Act as printed 
and no roll call vote was taken. This was a common occurrence 
in the Legislature and in the U.S. Congress; very often the 
intent of the amendment was only to be found in the mind of the 
chairman of a legislative committee. It was very difficult to 
catch such amendments in the final hours of a legislative 
session. Chairman Healey said he strongly supported the repeal 
of the amendment and would do everything in his power to see 
that the Collins bill was enacted. 

Chairman Healey stressed that the one thing he would 
not tolerate would be a criticism of the Board based on an 
alleged lack of interest in the welfare of the University or 
any of its parts. He said he would be willing to stand up and 
be counted on any of the myriad issues that faced the Board. 
This was true of the Board as a whole. The Board was interested; 
it had worked for the welfare of the University and would 
continue to do so. In fairness , before criticizing the Board, 
there should be some understanding of the work involved in 
serving on the Board. 



-3- 



Board 
12/6/78 



Board 
12/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



President Knapp said that there was substantial 
agreement within the University administration and among the 
Trustees with many of the issues that the Coalition representa- 
tives had raised. With regard to the present status of changing 
the preamble to the Budget Act, he said that the Administration 
was analyzing the language of the preamble, which is very 
ambiguous. Once the intent of the language was understood by 
all segments of public higher education, then the University 
would be able to determine how large any possible increase in 
tuition would be. The President said he would meet with the 
heads of the other segments of public higher education and the 
Chancellor of the Board of Higher Education in order to discuss 
both the intent of the legislation and strategy. Discussions 
had been held with Representative Collins concerning the nature 
of legislation that might be introduced and it was hoped that 
the Budget Act could be so amended that tuition would not have 
to be raised in the coming academic year. President Knapp said 
that some legislators had said they felt such an amendment 
could be passed early in the legislative session; others felt 
that it might run into trouble. However, the University would 
actively pursue efforts to repeal the original amendment. 

Trustee Kassler said that in lobbying to repeal 
the original amendment , the students should remember that 
legislators responded most readily to pressure from their own 
constituencies. Thus, if students, their families and the 
alumni were to contact the legislators from their districts, 
this would further the cause of repeal. 

Trustee Kassler said that he, and probably all of the 
Trustees, agreed that the loss of out-of-state students would 
have an adverse impact on the University. At the November 29 
meeting of the Committees on Faculty and Educational Policy and 
Student Affairs, the Administration had been asked to document 
just how great the impact would be, so that everyone could work 
together in achieving the agreed upon goal. 

Speaking as a relatively new member of the Board, 
Trustee Kassler said he wished to ask a favor of the students. 
The students, before tarring or damning any Trustee, including 
himself, should look at the record and see if the facts warran- 
ted condemnation. He agreed with Chairman Healey in his 
statement that the Board was a very hard working body and very 
dedicated to the interests of the University and to providing 
the students with the best education at a reasonable cost. 



-4- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Board 
12/6/78 



Trustee Tyson said the students had undertaken a 
survey of the out-of-state students which would give a good 
deal of factual information about them and would include 
information about the financial impact of a tuition raise. The 
returns from the study were now being received and, when 
complete, the study would be made available to the Board. 

Speaking of the matter of students being involved 
in the legislative process for repeal, Trustee Tyson said that 
4,424 students, both instate and out-of-state had signed a 
petition seeking repeal. 

Trustee Tyson said that the criticism of the Board 
only showed the lack of contact between the student body and 
the Board and the Central Administration. He said it was his 
hope that now and in the future the three could work together 
on all matters and come to know one another. 

Trustee Tyson then asked leave to make a motion. 
This was granted and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To endorse and work with the President's 
Office in an attempt to effect legis- 
lative repeal of the out-of-state tuition 
increase and residency requirement change. 
These efforts should be coordinated with 
all University constituencies, including 
staff and the student body. 

Further, to direct the University Adminis- 
tration to take all necessary and proper 
action to inform and assist all currently 
and potentially enrolled students that 
may be affected by present legislation 
so they may determine their university 
standing prior to January 15, 1979. 

As a last word, Chairman Healey urged the students 
not to underestimate the difficulty of persuading the Legis- 
lature to agree to do as the University wished. The legisla- 
tors would not be interested in generalizations. They would 
want hard facts, petitions and case studies. The Board and 
the Trustees could deal with the leadership. However, as 
Trustee Kassler had pointed out, a grass roots effort at the 
legislative district level would be very useful and this was 
something that the faculty and the students should work on. 
Speaking for himself and the entire Board, he said the Board 
would do everything it could to bring about repeal of the 
amendment . 



-5- 



Board 
12/6/78 



Executive 
Session 



President ' s 
Comments 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Mr. Barrus said that he had served in the Legis- 
lature for ten years and in each of those years out-of-state 
tuition had been discussed. One of the arguments legislators 
found most compelling against raising out-of-state tuition was 
that other states, throughout the country, would then retaliate 
by raising their out-of-state tuition rates. This would have 
an adverse effect on the many Massachusetts students who 
attended public institutions in other states. 

Chairman Healey then called for a motion to enter 
executive session in order to consider candidates for honorary 
degrees and personnel matters. The Board would reconvene in 
open session. 

At 11:32 a.m., without discussion, it was moved, 
seconded and on roll call 

VOTED : To enter executive session. 

Trustees Burack, Crain, Donlan, Kassler, Marks, 
McNulty, Morgenthau, O'Sullivan, Popko, Shearer, Troy and 
Tyson voted for the motion; as did Chairman Healey, President 
Knapp, Mr. Callahan, Ms. Pinck, Ms. Owens and Mr. Barrus. 

Trustees Breyer, Dennis, Fielding, Krumsiek, McNeil, 
Robertson and Sawtelle were absent. 

At 12:00 noon it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To end the executive session. 

Chairman Healey asked the President for his comments. 
President Knapp said that the Central Administration would soon 
start publication of a University newsletter which would be 
circulated to faculty and the professional staff on the three 
campuses. The newsletter would include information on activi- 
ties in the Central Administration, results of Trustee meetings 
and other matters of interest. It was felt that there was a 
need to improve internal communications and a newsletter was a 
way of doing this at a reasonable cost. 

In the matter of the Chancellors' searches, President 
Knapp said the search at Worcester was proceeding very rapidly. 
Interviews were now to be held with candidates and this stage 
would soon be completed. The President said he had been very 
encouraged by the quality of the candidates being interviewed. 

While the searches at Amherst and Boston were progress 
ing, President Knapp continued, they did not appear to be on 
the time schedule that had been set for them. The schedule 
called for a Board decision in March of 1979. It now looked as 
if the searches would be completed in time for action at the 
April meeting. 



-6- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



In addition to dealing with several short-run problems 
that faced the University, the President said there were a 
number of long-range issues of a developmental nature that 
would also have to be addressed. One issue that would have to 
be addressed very promptly was that of university relations. 
This included such matters as public relations, quality of 
publications, alumni relations, and fund raising. The Univer- 
sity was now at a point where it was necessary to have a 
coordinated effort with a focused leadership for the campuses 
and the University as a whole. President Knapp said that it 
was his expectation that the position of Associate Vice Presi- 
dent for University Relations would be upgraded to a Vice 
Presidency and that a search to fill the post would be initi- 
ated. 

Chancellor Bromery, in his comments, said that 
Marshall Stone, Professor of Mathematics and Statistics, had 
recently delivered a paper at Columbia University and had been 
awarded an honorary degree. This brought honor to the Univer- 
sity as well as to Professor Stone. Also, Professor George 
McGill, of the Geology Department, was presently in California 
as a member of a small team overseeing the soon to be completed 
probe of the planet Venus. The Chancellor concluded by noting 
that the football team, winners of the Lambert Cup and the 
Yankee Conference title, would soon play the University of 
Nevada at Reno in the National Collegiate Athletic Associa- 
tion's Division IAA championship playoff. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said that the Boston Campus 
had held a series of five articulation meetings which involved 
University personnel and guidance counsellors from the Boston 
area. At each meeting the visitors saw a slide presentation 
depicting the campus, followed by a discussion of the academic 
programs by the deans and faculty of the three colleges, a 
description of the admissions process and the support services 
available and, lastly, a tour of the campus. The response of 
the counsellors was heartening. Two-thirds of them had never 
visited the campus before; they were delighted with the campus 
and were amazed at the richness of the available facilities. 
They also were happy to hear the discussion about quality 
educational programs. This was apparently the first time they 
had ever heard this from a public institution. The meetings 
went very well and it was hoped that one result would be an 
increase in applications from the Boston area. 

Another activity of interest, Chancellor Van Ummersen 
continued, took place on Thanksgiving Day, when the campus 
hosted the elderly citizens of the community. Some 250 people 
were fed and some of the community's more noted citizens 
waited on them. This resulted in positive coverage by the 
local press. The meetings with the guidance counsellors and 
the Thanksgiving event exemplified the University's role as an 
academic institution and as an institution which interacted 
with the surrounding community. 

-7- 



Board 
12/6/78 



UM/Amherst — 
Chancellor 's 
Remarks 



UM/Boston — 
Chancellor f s 
Remarks 



Board 
12/6/78 

UM/Worcester — 

Chancellor's 

Remarks 



Recognition of 
Work of Trustee 
Representatives 
Barrus , Parks 
and Pinck 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Chancellor Goodman opened his comments by intro- 
ducing Dr. Peter Viles , Professor of Pediatrics and newly 
elected faculty representative to the Board from the Worcester 
Campus. The Chancellor then noted that the preliminary report 
from the accreditation team that had just visited the Medical 
School included a recommendation that the School be accredited 
for a five-year period. This was an accreditation which was 
normally granted to established and fully developed medical 
schools. The recommendation was qualified in that the School, 
at the end of two years, would be required to file a progress 
report on actions taken with regard to a few issues. Chancel- 
lor Goodman said that in his opinion the issues were not major 
ones and that the School had been aware of them prior to the 
accreditation visit and had already started working on them. 

Chairman Healey then noted that Mr. Barrus was 
leaving the Department of Food and Agriculture and this would 
be his last Board meeting as a Trustee Delegate. Mr. Barrus 
said he was leaving to return to his former position as Direc- 
tor of Governmental Relations of the Massachusetts Farm Bureau 
Federation. As he would be an official lobbyist, he said he 
might be more effective in fostering the welfare of the Univer- 
sity. 

Mr. Barrus said his interest in the University 
had been a long one and could be said to have begun even before 
his birth — his father having received his degree from Massachu- 
setts Agricultural College in 1903. This interest and his 
efforts to see that the University would continue to develop 
and would be one of the top universities in the country would 
continue. 

Mr. Barrus said he had several regrets on leaving 
the Board. He would miss the meetings and the associations 
that he had had with all of the Trustees. He congratulated the 
Board on the leadership it had shown over the years. He also 
regretted the oft repeated charge that the Trustees were not 
concerned with the welfare of the University. He totally 
disagreed with this charge. He concluded by praising Chairman 
Healey for doing a yeomanlike job in a most difficult situation. 

Trustee Kassler noted that both Ms. Pinck and Mr. 
Parks, Delegates for Trustee Dukakis, were also leaving. He 
said that both had set very high standards of participation for 
whoever might succeed them and said they deserved the thanks of 
the Board. Ms. Pinck responded by saying that on this occasion 
she would surprise everyone by saying nothing more than, 
M Thank-you. M 

The three Delegates were given a round of applause 
by the Trustees. 



-8- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Board 
12/6/78 



The Board then dealt with Honorary Degrees — UM/ Amherst UM/Amherst and 
and UM/Boston. Without discussion it was moved, seconded and UM/Boston 

Honorary Degrees 

VOTED : To confirm as candidates for Honorary 
Degrees to be awarded at the 1979 
Commencement, UM/Amherst, those persons 
agreed upon in executive session and 
instruct the Chancellor of the campus 
to proceed with necessary arrangements. 



and further 



VOTED 



To confirm as candidates for Honorary 
Degrees to be awarded at the 1979 
Commencement, UM/Boston, those persons 
agreed upon in executive session and 
instruct the Chancellor of the campus 
to proceed with necessary arrange- 
ments. 



The next item dealt with was Amendment to Trustee 
By-laws (Doc. T76-051C 78). Without discussion it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : To amend the By-laws of the Board of 
Trustees (Doc. T76-051C 78) by: 

(1) Striking out subsection (f) of 
Article III, Section 9 and insert- 
ing in lieu thereof the following: 

"(f) To consider policies pertaining 
to the investment of the endowment 
funds and other funds of the Univer- 
sity that may from time to time be 
invested and reinvested, and to make 
recommendations to the Board of 
Trustees with respect thereto."; 

(2) Striking out subsection (g) of Article 
III, Section 9; and 

(3) Renumbering the remaining subsections 
in said section. 

The matter of Affirmative Action Resolution was 
discussed briefly and it was agreed to postpone action on the 
Resolution until Trustees Dennis and McNeil had expressed their 
thoughts on the matter. During the course of the discussion, 
speaking on behalf of Mr. Parks who was unable to attend, Ms. 
Pinck said that he would like the record to show that he 
supported the Resolution. 



-9- 



Amendment to 
Trustee By-Laws 
(Doc. T76-051C78) 



Affirmative Ac- 
tion Resolution 



Board 
12/6/78 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Long- 
Range Planning 



UM/Boston — 
Long-Range 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The Trustees then heard the Reports of Standing 
Committees. Trustee Marks said that the Committee on Long-Range 
Planning had met on November 8 and had dealt with several 
items. These included Long-Range Planning Report — UM/Boston. 
The Committee had received a long range planning report from 
the campus, which report was one of a series of documents that 
Planning Reportl addressed the issue of planning priorities. The discussion at 

the meeting centered on the need to develop more precise 
information in order to formulate operational planning in such 
areas as enrollment, allocation of resources, rate and direction 
of development of academic units, and so forth. The Central 
Administration will be working in close collaboration with the 
Harbor campus over the next few months to reach resolution of a 
planning agenda for the campus. This would come before the 
Committee for review. 



UM/Worcester— 
One- and Five- 
Year Plan for 
Teaching Hos- 
pital 
(Doc. T78-124) 



Non-Physician 
Health Profes- 
sions Educa- 
tion at UMMC 



The Committee, Trustee Marks continued, had also 
heard a report on the One- and Five-Year Plan for the Teaching 
Hospital — UM/Worcester (Doc. T78-124) . The plan related mainly 
to clinical activities and was required by the Department of 
Public Health. If the Board approved the Plan for submission 
to the appropriate agencies, then the University would be on a 
normal timetable. The Plan now being considered covered the 
years 1979-83; at the August, 1978 meeting the Board had 
approved the 1978-82 Plan which, for a variety of reasons, had 
been delayed . 



There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded 



and 



VOTED ; To approve the One- and Five-Year Plan for 
the University Hospital, UM/Worcester, as 
detailed in Doc. T78-124 for submission to 
the appropriate agencies. 

The Committee on Long-Range Planning, Trustee Marks 
continued, had then discussed, on a very preliminary basis, a 
report on Non-Physician Health Professions Education at UMMC . 
As was known the Medical School and Teaching Hospital did not 
constitute what was generally referred to as a health sciences 
center. The Committee undertook to begin an evaluation of the 
basic question as to whether Worcester should become a more 
comprehensive academic health center offering selected graduate 
and possibly undergraduate programs in non-physician health 
disciplines. The Committee did not reach any conclusions. The 
discussion was, in effect, a very preliminary examination of 
several possibilities. A whole series of questions needs to be 
addressed in this matter, such as collaboration with other 
institutions in developing programs. Some of the programs 
which were mentioned and discussed in a very tentative way were 
medical technology, nursing, health care administration, 
physical therapy, podiatry and optometry. 



-10- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



In the matter of optometry, Chairman Marks continued, 
the Committee was disturbed to learn that a possible state 
approved school of optometry and its relationship with the 
Medical Center had apparently been under discussion for some 
time. Any discussions of enlarged operations obviously involved 
policy, and the Board and its Committees should be brought into 
such discussions very early. He urged the administration to 
look at any discussion of a school of optometry in that light. 

Trustee Crain then reported for the Committee on 
Budget and Finance. The Committee had met on November 22 and 
on December 5. At the November 22 meeting several issues were 
discussed including that of appointing Mr. Brand to the post of 
Treasurer. Trustee Crain said that the Committee recommended 
that the Board appoint Mr. Brand. Without discussion it was 
moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To appoint Robert H. Brand Treasurer 

of the University with responsibilities 
as detailed in Doc. T78-126. 

At the December 5 meeting the Committee had dis- 
cussed the advisability of a temporary Salary Adjustment for 
Acting Chancellor Goodman . It had been agreed to recommend 
that the Board make such an adjustment. Without discussion it 
was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To approve the personnel action set 
forth in Trustee Doc. T78-132. 

Trustee Crain reminded the Trustees that the Appoint- 
ment of Vice President for Management had been discussed during 
the just completed executive session. At the December 5 
Committee meeting this matter had been discussed at some 
length. The discussion included references to the search 
process, the candidates and the qualities and skills of of the 
President's proposed appointee. The Committee agreed to 
recommend that the Board concur in the President's action. 
Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To concur with the President's action in 
the appointment of Bernice E. Bradin as 
Vice President for Management and Profes- 
sor A of the University of Massachusetts, 

and further 

VOTED : To approve the Personnel Action as set 
forth in Trustee Doc. T78-133. 



-11- 



Board 
12/6/78 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Budget 
and Finance 

Appointment of 
Robert H. Brand 
as Treasurer of 
the University 
(Doc. T78-126) 



UM/ Worcester — 
Personnel Action 
(Doc. T78-132) 



Appointment of 
Bernice E. Bradin 
as Vice President 
for Management 



Personnel Action 
(Doc. T78-133) 



Board 
12/6/78 

Salary Adjust- 
ment for Non- 
unit Profes- 
sional Employ- 
ees 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The major item on the agenda of the December 5 
meeting, Trustee Crain continued, was Salary Adjustment for 
Non-unit Professional Employees . This was a complex subject 
which the Committee had discussed at great length. In passing 
the FY 1979 Appropriations Act the Legislature, apparently 
inadvertently, had included language in the Act which provided 
salary adjustments for employees in collective bargaining 
units, but precluded adjustments for employees not included in 
such units. This was absolutely inconsistent with past practice 
in the University. As the motion now before the Board stated 
the University had received assurances from the legislative 
leadership and the state administration that the intent of the 
Legislature was to provide salary adjustments for all eligible 
staff, regardless of affiliation or nonaf filiation. All 
avenues possible were being pursued to make the intent of the 
Legislature explicit. However, the Trustees should understand 
that authorizing the President to make salary adjustments for 
non-unit professional employees at this time placed the Univer- 
sity in some jeopardy, in that money would be spent from an 
existing budget for purposes that were not included in the 
budget. 

President Knapp said that many discussions on this 
matter had been held over the last few months. It was clear 
that in the $25,000,000 appropriation for compensation adjust- 
ments provision was made for all eligible personnel, union and 
nonunion. The funds would be available and the problem was a 
technicality of the language of the Act. He noted that Trustee 
Kassler, Vice President DeNyse and he had met with the Governor 
in the past week and had received assurances that every effort 
to clarify the language that could be made would be made. 
Talks had also been held with other state officials, and the 
University had received an all but ironclad guarantee that the 
matter would be straightened out. There was a risk involved, 
but it was a relatively small one. 

Trustee Burack asked what would happen if the language 
v/as not amended. President Knapp said that if this happened 
the University would not be able to draw funds for the compen- 
sation adjustment and the University would have to absorb the 
cost of the non-unit adjustments. Trustee Crain said that it 
was recommended that the Board assume the language would be 
clarified. If it were not, the University would be spending 
monies that had been budgeted for other purposes, mainly 
salaries, and at the end of the fiscal year the University 
might not be able to meet its payroll. The amount of money 
involved could be as high as $1,900,000. 

President Knapp said the problem was one of equity 
in dealing with people for the current month. Trustee Kassler 
said that the Trustees should understand that there was no 
possibility of an iron- clad guarantee. One of the purposes 



-12- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Board 
12/6/78 



of the motion was to place on the record the fact that the 
Board was acting on the basis of certain representations made 
to the University by responsible officials. It was his under- 
standing that the Governor would send a letter to the President 
indicating the Governor's understanding that clarifying legis- 
lation will be filed with the President of the Senate and the 
Speaker of the House. 

Chairman Healey said the proposed action seemed to 
be the best that the Boarcf could undertake at this time. Mr. 
DeNyse said that the other segments in public higher education, 
acting under the same jeopardy that faced the University, had 
already adjusted the salaries of their non-unit employees and 
had paid them. Mr. Callahan noted that some of the other 
segments had acted on the basis of assurances such as the 
University had received. Chairman Healey said the proposed 
approach was a measured and considered one. He thanked the 
Committee for its efforts and urged the Trustees to approve the 
action. There was no further discussion and it was moved, 
seconded and 

VOTED : In reliance upon correspondence to the 
Secretary of Administration and Finance 
of the Commonwealth, John R. Buckley, 
from James A. Kelly, Jr., Chairman of the 
Senate Ways and Means Committee of the 
Legislature in 1978 and John J. Finnegan, 
Chairman of the House Ways and Means 
Committee of the Legislature in 1978, 
dated November 15, and October 12, 1978 
respectively, correspondence from the 
Secretary of Administration and Finance 
to the President of the University of 
Massachusetts dated November 17, 1978, 
and correspondence to the University from 
George Bennett, Director of the Office of 
Employee Relations for the Commonwealth 
in 1978, dated July 17, 1978, each of which 
purports to represent and confirm that the 
intent of the 1978 session of the Legis- 
lature regarding Item 1599-2094 of Chapter 
367 of the Acts of 1978 was to provide 
money for transfer to agencies of the 
Commonwealth including the University, so 
as to enable such agencies to provide 
compensation adjustments for those employed 
in such agencies who were not and are 
not a part of any recognized collective 
bargaining agreement as well as for those 
who were and are within such recognized 
collective bargaining units and who were, 



-13- 



Board 
12/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



and further 



are, and will be monetary beneficiaries of 
such collective bargaining agreements, 
that the President of the University 
be authorized to implement compensation 
adjustments pursuant to guidelines es- 
tablished by the State Office of Employee 
Relations for professional staff members 
not represented by an employee organi- 
zation certified by the Labor Relations 
Commission, and that the President 
report to the Board at or before its 
March, 1979 meeting the progress of 
any remedial legislation which may have 
been filed intended to correct the lan- 
guage deficiency contained in the refer- 
enced sections of the act. 



VOTED ; That the President of the University 

be delegated the authority to reclassify 
in accordance with the salary guidelines 
as established by the State Office of 
Employee Relations those professional 
positions for which a specific weekly 
salary rate or a limited weekly salary 
range presently exists. 



BHE Budget 
Recommendation 
for FY80 



At Trustee Crain's request, Mr. Stine reported 
on the Board of Higher Education Budget Recommendation for FY 
1980 . Mr. Stine said the BHE, at its November meeting, had 
considered but not passed its FY 1980 recommendations. The 
recommendations of the maintenance portion of the budget were 
as follows: 

UM/Amherst — the University requested 
$87,500,000; BHE recommendation was $86, 700,000 i 

UM/Boston — the University requested 
$26,000,000; BHE recommended $25,200,000. 

Medical School — the University requested 
$13,800,000; BHE recommended $13,500,000. 

Central Administration — the University requested 
$1,500,000; BHE recommended $1,200,000. 

Mr. Stine said he and the President had discussed the 
budget with the BHE and had asked the Board to increase its 
recommendations. New information, based on the collective 
bargaining agreement, had been forwarded to the BHE and the 
efforts to increase the budget would continue. 



-14- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Crain said that the last item discussed 
at the December 5 meeting was that of outside legal fees 
associated with collective bargaining. The Committee had asked 
that an analysis of these fees be prepared for the Committee 
and the Board. 

The Board then heard the report on the joint meeting 
of the Committees on Student Affairs and Faculty and Educational 
Policy. Trustee Shearer said that the Trustees had discussed 
Admissions and Financial Aid at the three campuses . As no 
actions were taken and since the documentation supplied to the 
Trustees was so complete and effectively covered the discus- 
sion, Trustee Shearer said she would not repeat that which all 
had read. 

The next item on the agenda was the report of the 
Committee on Faculty and Educational Policy. Trustee Troy said 
that the first item dealt with at the November 29 meeting was 
the proposed Center for the Study of New Russian Literature — 
UM/Amherst (Doc. T78-128). The proposal had been cleared by 
the Faculty Senate and the campus administration. 

Trustee Troy said that there were no budgetary 
implications since the Center would work within the Department 
of Slavic Languages and Literatures, therefore it was not 
entirely clear if Board approval was necessary. However, the 
Center would be speaking in the name of the University and it 
was felt that Board approval would be proper. 

The Center would serve as an archive of recent 
Russian literature which had been clandestinely printed and 
circulated in the Soviet Union, generally referred to as 
samizdat literature, and of a large number of manuscripts, 
unpublishable there, which had been brought out of Russia in a 
variety of ways. The aim of the Center would be to circulate 
and publish this literature. The proposal was a rational one 
and the Committee recommended approval. 



Board 
12/6/78 



Report of Joint 
Meeting of Com- 
mittees on Stu- 
dent Affairs and 
Faculty and Edu- 
cational Policy 

on 

Admissions and 
Financial Aid 

Report of Com- 
mittee on Facul- 
ty and Education- 
al Policy 

UM/Amherst — 
Center for the 
Study of New 
Russian Litera- 
ture 
i (Doc, T78-128) 



There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded 



and 



VOTED : To establish a Center for the Study of 

New Russian Literature at the University 
of Massachusetts at Amherst as detailed 
in Trustee Document T78-128. 

The Committee, Trustee Troy continued, then discussed 
an informational item, Graduate Students Stipends — UM/Amherst. 
In earlier discussions on married student housing the campus 
had been asked to report on this matter. The report showed 
that while the stipends at Amherst were somewhat comparable to 
those at other universities, they were at the low end of the 



-15- 



UM/Amherst — 
Graduate Student 
Stipends 



Board 
12/6/78 



University Cen- 
ter for Studies 
in Policy and 
the Public In- 
terest 
(Doc. T78-127) 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



scale. The problem was that equity would suggest that the 
stipends should be increased fairly substantially. However, 
resources are very limited and an increase would reduce the 
number of students that could be appointed. This was a very 
real dilemma which could only be resolved with additional 
funds. A complicating factor was that there was at present a 
petition before the State Labor Relations Commission asking 
that the graduate students be allowed to form a union, so the 
University might be precluded from granting an increase until 
the Commission made a decision. 

Trustee Crain asked if Counsel said that the Univer- 
sity could not act, or that the University was possibly pre- 
cluded from acting. Trustee Troy said that it was his under- 
standing that the Board could not act. Chairman Healey, on 
being told by Mr. Searson that a formal petition was pending 
before the Commission and had been for some two years, said 
that this would indicate that no adjustment could be made. 
Trustee Crain said his concern was that the graduate students 
had made a very solid case for some adjustment. It was frustratr 
ing to find that the Board could not act because of the slowness 
of another agency. He asked if there was anything that could 
be done. 



Mr. Searson said that it might be possible to meet 
with the graduate students and, with their permission, make 
some adjustment without this being viewed as an unfair labor 
practice. Trustee Kassler pointed out that an unfair labor 
practice comes about only when one side files a claim. As had 
been pointed out, it might be possible to come to some agreement 
with the graduate students which would not lead to a claim of 
unfair labor practice. Chairman Healey said that every effort 
should be made to unblock this matter in a way that would not 
get the University into trouble. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee had then discussed 
in some detail the proposed University Center for Studies in 
Policy and the Public Interest , (Doc. T7 8-127). The proposal 
had been put forth by Professor Patterson and it addressed the 
very important subject of the future relationship between the 
John F. Kennedy Library and the University. All members of the 
Committee agreed that the presence of the Library provided an 
opportunity for the University as a whole and particularly for 
the Harbor Campus to develop programs which would greatly 
enhance the University's educational offerings, thus benefit- 
ting not only the students and faculty, but the public at 
large. 

The Center, Trustee Troy continued, would act as 
the instrument which would develop and focus, and provide a 
stimulus for, University relations with the Library. It would 
serve as a catalyst and a monitor for this developing and 
continuing relationship. It would be financed by outside 



-16- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Board 
12/6/78 



grants . One reason the Board was being asked to approve the 
Center at this time was to enable it to begin seeking grants. 
Trustee Troy said he had just learned that the proposed Center 
had received a grant of $16,500 from the National Endowment for 
the Humanities, which would provide seed money for development. 

Trustee Troy said the document for the proposal was 
seen as an intelligent, imaginative and carefully thought 
through proposal. Every effort had been made to flesh out 
the general recommendations with rather specific illustrations. 
The document was to be regarded as an overview of the direction 
and scope of the activities which the presence of the Library 
would enable the University to consider, rather than a blueprint 
The consensus of the Committee, Trustee Troy said, was that there 
was need at this time for a statement of intent, such as the 
proposed Center provided, to which the Kennedy Library and other 
interested groups could respond. The Board should make clear its 
awareness of the many possibilities inherent in its relationship 
with the Library. 

The Committee had raised questions about the possibil- 
ity of duplication of efforts by the Institute for Governmental 
Services and the Center. However, it was pointed out that 
while cooperation between the two was desirable and likely, 
their essential scope and goals were quite different. The 
Institute's activities are directed to a limited and clearly 
defined clientele; the Center would address a much broader 
spectrum, particularly students and faculty, as well as a very 
different public. Many other issues were clarified; for 
example, it was pointed out that the present Board of Governors 
of the Library was established simply to select a site and to 
arrange funding. The Library, once opened, would become part 
of the National Archives. Trustee Troy said that the Committee 
voted to recommend that the Board approve establishment of the 
Center. 

Trustee Burack said that while she was in total 
agreement with the stated goals of the Center, she was opposed 
to its establishment at this time. Establishment would be a 
premature policy decision on the part of the Board. The 
creation of such a center was to her an end product of a 
process rather than an initial step. A process should include 
determining the likelihood of obtaining grants and defining the 
amount of undergraduate use of the Library that would be 
permitted. Further, there was no budget for the Center, and 
there had been no faculty or student participation in the 
discussions so far. 

Trustee Burack said she could find no justification 
for establishing a center before the fact, rather than, as was 
the Board's normal routine, after a period of some months of 
exploring all ramifications of the relationships with the 



-17- 



Board 
12/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Kennedy Library. With all the facts, the Board could then 
decide if a center was desirable and necessary. Trustee Burack 
said she found the argument that the center was needed in order 
to get grant monies to be invalid. Hundreds of professors 
across the country, including those at the University, got 
large grants for their institutions without the instrumentality 
of a center. 

Trustee Troy said that he stood on his previous 
statement. The relationship with the Library would have to 
begin at some point and now seemed a logical time to begin. 
The proposed program was one that would have to evolve. It 
would be impossible to provide a detailed blueprint to be 
followed. The document described in general terms how the 
Center would operate as a catalyst, a stimulus and a focus for 
activities that will relate the University to the Library. 
Trustee Troy said it was his belief that unless the Board acted 
very soon on this matter, other institutions would move in. 
The Library was almost certainly expecting the University to 
move and to move swiftly. The proposal before the Board was 
not up in the air. It was very concrete, for example, in the 
development of fellowships, the relations between the University 
Library and the Kennedy Library, and in the ways in which the 
public might be reached. It was at once a modest and imagina- 
tive statement of what the possibilities were in the relation- 
ship between the two institutions. 

Trustee Crain, speaking of the matter of budgets, 
asked if there would be any use of University funds for overhead 
costs. Trustee Troy said he assumed that the Center would 
function as other grant supported activities did — that is, a 
certain amount of the grant paid for overhead. Trustee Crain 
then asked if housing the Center would require anything other 
than existing quarters. Trustee Troy said he did not think 
this would be the case. The Center would not be an elaborate 
operation, either in terms of space or numbers of personnel. 

Speaking of the Citizens' Legislative Seminars 
mentioned in the proposal, Trustee Crain said that he had 
discussed these with the staff of the President of the Senate 
and they were not clear as to what these seminars would be. 
This was a point that needed clarification. Another matter was 
that he had heard much discussion of the association of the 
Library and the University but to his knowledge this associa- 
tion had never been clearly defined. Such a definition was 
needed, and was needed quickly. It should clearly indicate the 
role of the University in its relationship with the Library. 
Further, there should be communication by President Knapp with 
Stephen Smith, President of the Kennedy Library Corporation, or 
someone at the policy-making level of the Library. Trustee 
Troy said that the proposal spelled out very well and very 
concretely the kinds of activities that were envisioned. 



-18- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Board 
12/6/78 



Trustee Crain agreed that this was so; however, what he was 
seeking was an indication that those at the policy level of the 
Kennedy Library agreed with these activities. Chairman Healey 
said that the proposed Center could be seen as a vehicle which 
would help resolve this matter. 

Trustee Marks said he would not only support the 
creation of the Center, he would do so with considerable 
enthusiasm. He said that he had shared the concern of some of 
the Trustees about the need for greater detail in the proposal; 
however, this concern was answered in the document supplied to 
the Board. At the inception of a cooperative relationship 
between two quite independent institutions there would inevit- 
ably be areas that were impossible to define with precision. 

The basic question, Trustee Marks continued, was 
whether the Board should have everything in great detail and 
all of the unknowns identified in advance, as was the normal 
course of action, or whether, because of the timing and a 
variety of other circumstances, this was an occasion when the 
Board should make a relatively bold move to capture the interest 
and cooperation of the Kennedy Library and begin a meaningful 
relationship. Trustee Marks said he was in favor of making the 
bold move and that it was the sense of the Faculty and Educational 
Policy Committee, faced with the choice of waiting until 
everything was in place or taking a bold step, that the latter 
was preferred. In other words, establish the Center, realizing 
that there were areas of ambiguity, with the assertion that the 
Center would be the instrument to see that the two institutions 
work together for the betterment of each. He urged the Trustees . 
despite the lack of clarity on a few things, to realize that a 
good deal of clarity had emerged, to take what would be a 
meaningful step for the Harbor Campus and hopefully for the 
University as a whole and for the Kennedy Library itself. 

Trustee Kassler said that he had attended the November 
29 meeting and had heard the full presentation regarding the 
Center. He said he found the concept of a working relationship 
between the two institutions to be very exciting and it had the 
potential of becoming a truly unique operation. While there 
was a good deal of validity in Trustee Marks' statement that 
the Board was faced with the choice of operating in its normal 
routine or taking a bold step, it could be argued that the 
Trustees should consider taking an action that was somewhat in 
between those two choices. What was needed was time to explore 
what the potential of the relationship was and what alternatives 
should be considered. Questions yet to be answered included 
undergraduate participation in the relationship, certain 
budgetary implications and the interests of the Kennedy Library. 



-19- 



Board 
12/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Kassler said that it should be noted that 
in the person of Mr. Patterson, the University had an individual 
who had the interest, expertise and willingness to develop the 
relationship between the University and the Library. Trustee 
Kassler suggested that Mr. Patterson be relieved of one half of 
his teaching duties during the coming semester so that he could 
pursue all of the questions which had been raised. At the end 
of the semester Mr. Patterson could come back to the Board with 
answers and recommendations. The grant from the National 
Foundation for the Humanities would provide the funds necessary 
for this task. 

Trustee Kassler said he thought this would provide 
the needed statement of intent that the University was prepared 
and interested to pursue a special relationship with the 
Library. Also, it would provide Mr. Patterson with the time 
necessary to complete the work, and it would allow the Univer- 
sity to deal with the issue in its normal process. He then 
proposed that this course be considered as an amendment to the 
vote now before the Board or as an alternative to it. 

Chairman Healey asked Trustee Kassler if he was 
proposing that the Board approve the Center in principle, but 
that its establishment be delayed until it had been examined 
more thoroughly. Trustee Kassler said this was so. Further, 
assuming Mr. Patterson's willingness, there was a need to 
relieve him of some of his teaching load in order really to 
address the issue. 



Trustee Troy said he thought this to be an unnecessary 
refinement. Mr. Patterson had already done a great deal of 
thinking about the matter. He had discussed the matter with 
people in Washington and with people associated with the 
Kennedy Library. The document he had produced was concrete and 
specific as to the kinds of things that would likely occur. 
Trustee Troy did not see any risk in establishing the Center. 
If the Center didn't work out there would be no monetary loss 
to the University. There was no reason not to act immediately. 
It would be possible to stipulate that the Center be reviewed 
over a one- or two-year period. 

Chancellor Van Ummersen said she felt that the 
Center would be helpful in developing needed connections. Her 
only concern with the proposal was that there were no sugges- 
tions as to ways in which academic programs would fit into the 
relationships. She had raised this matter at the November 29 
meeting and the explanation given at that time — that the Center 
would serve as a catalyst for such programs — did not indicate 
clearly how this would come about. Trustee Troy said that this 
was one of the problems that would have to be resolved whether 
the Board acted now or some months from now. 



-20- 



' 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Trustee Crain said that he would support Trustee 
Kassler's amendment in the sense that it seemed to be the 
logical first building block in establishing the Center. The 
proposal needed further refinement before the Board acted on 
it. He also endorsed the suggestion that Mr. Patterson be 
relieved of some of his teaching duties. President Knapp said 
that arranging class schedules was a very difficult matter 
because there were many interrelationships involved. He 
supported the idea of free time for working on the proposal. 
However, this was something that should be worked out by 
Chancellor Van Ummersen and Mr. Patterson. 



Board 
12/6/78 



President Knapp said that his most fundamental 
interest in this matter was that the University be in a position 
to have a vehicle for declaring the University's interest in 
pursuing a program with the Library in a concrete way. As a 
result of conversations he had held with Stephen Smith and with 
Mr. Fenn, Director of the Kennedy Library, and others, and 
because of conversations Mr. Patterson had had with a number 
people, it could be said that the University was well on its 
way towards shaping a relationship . The scope was beginning to 
develop. What was needed now, especially in seeking external 
funding, was a statement by the University of its interest in a 
relationship with the Library in a research, teaching, and 
public service context as was laid out in Mr. Patterson's 
proposal. President Knapp said that he would be concerned if 
matters were delayed. A declaration of intent, through approval 
of the proposed Center, would be very important in the search 
for external funding. The situation was different from that of 
an individual investigator or an academic department seeking 
funding. What was being discussed was a programmatic develop- 
ment which had to have something concrete behind it. 

Trustee Crain said that he had heard reports that 
in addition to the already mentioned $16,500 grant, a further 
grant of $9,000 had been made. Thus $25,500 in external funds 
had been committed even before the Center had been approved. 
President Knapp said the second grant was actually a $3000 
commitment by each of the campuses to help get the program 
started. Trustee Burack said that the Board approved numerous 
statements of intent, declarations of policy and resolutions. 
She said she still did not believe that it was necessary to 
create a bureaucracy in order to make public the Board's 
intent . 

At this point the Trustees agreed to recess the 
meeting. The time was 1:05 p.m. 



-21- 



Board 
12/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



The meeting resumed at 2:05 p.m. Chairman Healey 
called for a continuation of the discussion on the proposed 
University Center for Studies in Policy and the Public In- 
terest. Trustee Marks said he wished to reiterate that there 
were indeed two legitimate viewpoints. Despite the somewhat 
unorthodox aspects of the proposal, he urged the Trustees to 
approve the establishment of the Center. It was his belief 
that following the normal process, while it might be a trifle 
more orderly and would conform more closely to past practice, 
would run the risk of being misinterpreted by the Kennedy 
Library people. The Board might end up with an orderly pro- 
cedure but with no collaboration with the Library. 

Trustee Donlan suggested that the Board consider 
designating the Center for establishment and mandating the 
President to establish it at a certain time. Chairman Healey 
said the basic issue seemed to be whether to establish the 
Center now or whether it was to be established later. He noted 
that Trustee 0' Sullivan had been unable to stay and had asked 
that the Board be informed of his belief that the Trustees 
would not be acting hastily if they approved the proposal at 
this time. If anything, the Board was somewhat late. The 
Kennedy Library would serve as a recruiting tool for the 
University. In the interest of the students at Boston, Trustee 
0' Sullivan said he would oppose any move to relieve Mr. Patterson 
of any of his teaching duties, as many students had signed up 
for the classes he had scheduled. Chairman Healey said that 
Trustee Breyer, who was absent, had also asked that the Board 
be informed of his support for the proposed Center. 

Trustee Kassler then asked leave to offer a substitute 
motion, as follows: 

MOVED : That the Board of Trustees designate for 
establishment, a University Center for 
Studies in Policy and the Public Interest 
or such other appropriate vehicle for the 
long-range relationship between the Univer- 
sity, the Boston Campus and the Kennedy 
Library, and that the President be autho- 
rized to designate those staff members to 
report to the Board of Trustees on or 
before the June meeting the budget, 
nature and plan for such institute or 
alternative. 

Trustee Marks said this motion would be acceptable 
to him as it would provide the needed forward motion and would 
address the legitimate concerns of a fully structured proposal. 
Trustee Crain said the motion met his needs. Trustee Troy said 
he would prefer that the Board vote to establish the Center 
at this time; however, if Trustee Kassler' s motion reflected 
the feelings of the Board he would accept it. 

-22- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Answering President Knapp's question as to what 
implications the motion would have on fund raising, Mr. Pattersoi 
said he would be disappointed if the motion were approved, as 
it would put the University in the position of not appearing to 
move as decisively as it should. As Trustee 0' Sullivan had 
said, the University was late in moving. The motion did not 
appear to commit the Board to anything. Mr. Patterson said his 
own position was that the Board should establish a Center now. 
This would provide an instrument to enable the University to 
move in the direction it should be moving. 

Trustee Burack said that reaction to Trustee Kassler's 
motion would be largely a matter of the way in which it was 
interpreted to the public. Further, the motion was eminently 
suitable and appropriate and, if interpreted properly, it would 
be seen as a commitment on the part of the Board. 

Ms. Owens said that she supported Trustee Troy's 
motion to establish the Center. She said that nothing in the 
discussion had indicated that the establishment of the Center 
would in any way be a more unorthodox action than that just 
taken in approving the Center for New Russian Literature. Her 
only concern with Mr. Patterson's proposal was that, as had 
been stated, it did not address clearly the matter of under- 
graduate involvement. 

Chairman Healey called for a vote on the substitute 
motion made by Trustee Kassler. The motion was denied. 

It was then moved, seconded and 

VOTED : To establish a University Center for 

Studies in Policy and the Public Interest 
as detailed in Trustee Doc. T78-127. 

Trustee Burack voted against the motion. 

Trustee Troy then reported on the Committee's discus- 
sion on Graduate Education — UM/Boston. Last spring the Commit- 
tee had asked the campus for an overall view of how graduate 
work at Boston should develop over the next five years. The 
request grew out of a Board decision to reopen and re-examine 
the issue of graduate study after an imposed moratorium of 
three years. 

It was the consensus of the Campus, the Central 
Administration and of the Committee that graduate education at 
Boston should not in any way seek to duplicate the kinds of 
programs offered at Amherst. It was felt that Boston should 



-23- 



Board 
12/6/78 



UM/Boston — 
Graduate Educa* 
tion 



Board 
12/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



seek to develop selected master's degree programs that would be 
complete in themselves, rather than being steps on the way to a 
doctorate. Further, the programs should endeavor to respond to 
the career needs and opportunities of the students, and thus 
should combine traditional rigorous liberal arts disciplines 
with a career focus; and the programs should not duplicate 
programs already available in surrounding institutions. There 
was also agreement that a few selective doctoral programs might 
be developed when the relationship between the campus and the 
Kennedy Library becomes clarified. 

The campus report, Trustee Troy continued, was seen 
as useful, basically sound and faithful to the agreed upon 
guidelines. However, the committee saw a need for sharp 
definition and precision if the effort was to serve as a 
controlling plan for the development of individual programs. 
President Knapp and Mr. Lynton would continue to consult and 
work with the campus in the effort to further develop the 
plan. 

The Committee had also asked for one or two specific 
examples of the kinds of programs being contemplated. The 
campus had provided two. One, a Master's Program in Applied 
Physics , the other, a Master's Program in Critical and Creative 
Thinking . The Applied Physics Program could be seen as a kind 
of model that future programs would follow — it combined tradi- 
tional graduate study in the discipline of physics with an 
internship component and laboratory work. The academic require- 
ments would be rigorous and it would be a terminal degree. The 
Committee had agreed to recommend that the Board approve 
establishment of the program. It was an innovative and imagina- 
tive proposal and Board approval would give great encouragement 
to the faculty at Boston. 



Without further discussion it was moved, seconded 



and 



UM/Boston — 
Establishment 
of Master's 
Program in 
Applied Physics 
(Doc. T78-129) 



VOTED ; To approve the establishment of a Master's 
Program in Applied Physics at the Univer- 
sity of Massachusetts at Boston, as de- 
tailed in Trustee Document T78-129, said 
proposal to be submitted to the Board of 
Higher Education for its review and 
approval, to be implemented in September, 
1979, or as soon thereafter as possible. 

Trustee Troy said the Committee had also discussed 
petitions from three members of the Amherst faculty. The 
faculty members had been granted sabbatical leave and while on 
leave they had found new positions. The petitions asked that 
the Board waive the requirement that they return the salary 
received during the sabbatical year. The Board regulation 
states that anyone granted a sabbatical leave must return to 
the campus for at least one full academic year of service after 
the sabbatical year or return the salary received during the 

-24- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



sabbatical year. After careful discussion the Committee had 
agreed that the Board should adhere to its stated policy and 
that the petitions be denied. It was felt that violation of 
the regulation might well jeopardize the continuation of the 
sabbatical leave program itself. This would constitute a 
serious deprivation. The Committee had voted to deny the 
petitions. No Board action was required. 

Trustee Troy concluded his report by noting that the 
Committee had voted to go into executive session to discuss two 
tenure appeals. The Committee had made recommendations to the 
Central Administration regarding the appeals. 

The Board then heard the report of the Committee 
on Buildings and Grounds. Trustee Kassler said that the 
Committee had met on December 4. The first item considered was 
the Amendments to Motor Vehicle Rules and Regulations (Doc. 
T75-155A) — UM/ Amherst. The need for these amendments was to 
bring the Rules and Regulations into conformance with the state 
Motor Vehicle Regulations and to allow enforcement in the 
local courts for violations occurring on campus. Staff from 
Amherst had stated that the amendments had been discussed with, 
and approved by, state and local officials. 

Without discussion it was moved > seconded and 

VOTED : That the Motor Vehicle Rules and Regulations of 
the Amherst campus (Doc. T75-155A77) be amended 
as proposed by the Department of Public Safety. 

The second item considered, Trustee Kassler continued, 
was Revision to Traffic and Parking Plan (Doc. T76-014A) — UM/ 
Worcester. The need for this revision was that the original 
plan called for construction of a garage. The garage was not 
to be built and the proposed revision would, in effect, acknowl- 
edge this fact. 

There was no discussion and it was moved, seconded and 

VOTED : That the plans for traffic control for the 
Worcester campus (Doc. T76-014A) be amended 
by substituting revised plans therefor. 

Trustee Kassler said the Committee then dealt with 
the Knowlton House Renovation (Doc. T7 8-131) — UM/ Amherst. This 
residence hall was in need of substantial repairs and the 
renovation was one of a planned series. The work would include 
bringing the hall into compliance with the handicapped barriers 
act. In discussing this proposal, the Committee had been 
assured that any needed contracts would be so drawn that there 
would be adequate supervision of the performance of the contrac- 
tors and that apppropriate funds would be withheld. This was 
done to avoid a recurrence of many of the problems that the 
University had faced in the past. 

-25- 



Board 
12/6/78 



Report of Com- 
mittee on Build- 
ings and Grounds 

[UM/Amherst — 
|! Amendments to 
Motor Vehicle 
i Rules and Regu- 
lations 
(Doc. T75-155A78) 



UM/Worcester — 
Revision to 
Parking Plan 
(Doc. T76-014A, 
as amended) 



UM/Amherst — 
Knowlton House 
Renovation 
(Doc. T78-131) 



Board 
12/6/78 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Without discussion it was moved, seconded and 



Report of Ad 
Hoc Committee 
on Board Opera- 
tions and Or- 
ganization 



VOTED ; That the preliminary plans for the 

renovation of Knowlton House be approved 
(Doc. T78-131). Further, that the Presi- 
dent of the University be delegated the 
authority to approve working plans and 
specifications for said project. 

Trustee Kassler concluded his report by noting 
that the President and the members of the Committee had agreed 
to study the problems and interrelationships of the UM/Building 
Authority and the Board. As a Trustee member of the Authority, 
Trustee Kassler said he felt it was very critical that the 
Authority express its interest and willingness to deal with 
bond issues outstanding, available funds held, and management 
contracts, in order to assist the Trustees in caring for and 
renovating buildings which were under the control of the 
Authority. 

Trustee Kassler stressed that the development of 
plans for maintenance and renovation will require a great deal 
of work by the Administration. He thanked President Knapp for 
his willingness to meet very quickly with the people from the 
Building Authority. After the first of the year, he expected 
that the University would begin to develop plans in order to 
make better use of funds that are available and to explore the 
financial implications of some of the rather dramatic plans 
that may be forthcoming. Trustee Crain said that he had been 
asked by the Budget and Finance Committee to state the interest 
it had in the revitalization of the Building Authority and to 
underscore its interest in any movement that could occur 
regarding refunding which could help the University in its very 
serious maintenance problems. The Committee appreciated the 
movements and endorsed the action that was going on. 

The Board then heard the report of the Ad hoc Commit- 
tee on Board Operations and Organization. Trustee Burack said 
the Committee had met and had done a preliminary screening of 
the applications for the post of Administrative Secretary. The 
Committee had arranged to interview seven of the candidates in 
the coming week. 

The Committee, Trustee Burack continued, had also 
discussed a suggestion made at an earlier Board meeting that 
the Board schedule a January meeting rather than holding one in 
August. For a variety of reasons many Trustees found it 
difficult to attend meetings in August. 

In the course of the discussion on the scheduling 
of Board meetings it was noted that the August meeting had been 
agreed upon because it coincided with the actions of the 



' 



-26- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



Legislature regarding the budget. Also, consideration had been 
given to recommending that the Board meet in late June rather 
than August. 

Chairman Healey said that this was a matter which 
would have to be decided after full consideration. He suggested 
that the Board not meet in January, 1979, unless a special 
meeting became necessary and that the Board, early in 1979, 
consider the whole schedule of Trustee meetings. It was his 
recollection that the suggestion had been made that the Trustees 
consider the advisability of the Board's meeting every other 
month and holding committee meetings in those months in which 
the Board did not meet • This was the way in which the Univer- 
sity of California Board operated. Chairman Healey said he was 
not suggesting this; it was just an indication that the Board 
had many alternatives from which to choose. 

There was no further business to come before the 
Board, and the meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m. 




Dorothy Eichel 
Assistant Secretary to the 
Board of Trustees 



-27- 



UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS 



' 



NOT USED 
















^-^^s I $$& i § 
















m